Get NAV history for a fund, optionally filtered by date range.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to_date | No | End date in YYYY-MM-DD format (optional) | |
| from_date | No | Start date in YYYY-MM-DD format (optional) | |
| 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 for behavioral disclosure. It states the operation is a 'get' (read-only) and mentions date filtering, but does not disclose return format, ordering, pagination, default behavior when no dates are provided, or any potential errors or limitations. For a tool with zero annotations, this is a significant gap.
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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose (get NAV history) and immediately notes the optional date filter. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or unnecessary detail.
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?
Given the tool has no output schema and no annotations, the description should at least indicate what the response contains (e.g., list of NAV values with dates) or any ordering. It does not. While the sibling tools provide context, the description alone is not sufficiently complete for an agent to anticipate the tool's behavior beyond the basic operation.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100% (all three parameters have descriptions), so the schema already documents each parameter. The description adds a high-level summary by mentioning 'optionally filtered by date range', which aligns with the schema but does not add new semantic detail. Baseline of 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 clearly states the tool retrieves NAV history for a fund, with optional date-range filtering. It implies a specific resource ('fund') and action ('get history'), but does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like get_gift_nav_history or get_nps_nav_history, which likely handle specialized fund types.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_latest_nav (for current NAV) or get_gift_nav_history (for gift funds). The 'optionally filtered by date range' gives a hint about usage flexibility but no explicit when-to-use or exclusions.
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.
