Get debt quantitative metrics for a fund: Macaulay Duration, Modified Duration, average maturity (years), and annualised YTM (%). Available for debt and hybrid funds from AMFI portfolio disclosures.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| scheme_code | Yes | AMFI scheme code |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does specify the data source and the metrics returned, which is helpful, but it does not disclose what happens for non-debt funds, potential data availability issues, or the return format. This is a simple read operation but lacks edge-case behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and every word adds value. It lists the metrics efficiently and adds the qualifier about fund types and data source without any fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-parameter read tool, the description is complete. It names the input, specifies the output metrics, and gives the applicable fund types. There is no output schema, but the metric list serves as a clear description of return values. No missing critical information given the tool's simplicity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% coverage with a single parameter 'scheme_code' described as 'AMFI scheme code'. The description does not add additional parameter semantics beyond that, but since the schema is complete, baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description explicitly states the tool's purpose: 'Get debt quantitative metrics for a fund' and enumerates specific metrics (Macaulay Duration, Modified Duration, average maturity, annualised YTM). It also distinguishes itself from sibling metric tools by specifying the fund types (debt and hybrid funds) and data source (AMFI portfolio disclosures).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context for when to use the tool: for debt and hybrid funds, and it lists the exact metrics returned. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or state when not to use it (e.g., for equity funds). It lacks a direct comparison to sibling tools like get_metrics, but the context is sufficiently clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Tools are mostly distinct, with clear prefixes (gift, nps, sif) separating fund types. Some overlap exists among metrics/returns tools, but descriptions clarify their specific scope. Overall, an agent can differentiate tools without much ambiguity.
All tools follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern (e.g., get_fund, list_categories, screen_funds). Verbs are standardized (get, list, search, compare, find, screen), making the API predictable and easy to navigate.
At 28 tools, the set exceeds the 'too many' threshold. While the domain covers multiple fund types, the count is excessive; several tools (e.g., get_metrics, get_gift_metrics, get_nps_metrics) could be consolidated with parameters. This may overwhelm agents.
The tool surface is comprehensive for a read-only mutual fund data server. It covers search, comparison, screening, NAV history, holdings, quantitative metrics, benchmarks, and specialized segments (GIFT, NPS, SIF). No critical gaps were identified.
