Get top holdings for an NPS scheme from the latest official NPS Trust scheme snapshot PDF.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max holdings (default: 5, max: 10) | |
| scheme_code | Yes | NPS scheme code, e.g. SM001008 |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral transparency burden. It discloses the data source (a PDF snapshot) but does not explain how top holdings are determined, what happens if the PDF is unavailable, or any freshness/parsing limitations. This is a significant gap for a tool that apparently parses external documents.
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, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the action, target, and data source. Every word contributes to meaning, with no filler or redundancy.
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 tool with two parameters (one required), no output schema, and clear schema descriptions, the description provides sufficient context about the input and source. It does not explain the output shape or error cases, but given the tool's straightforward nature and sibling context, it is reasonably complete.
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 coverage is 100%, with descriptions for both scheme_code and limit. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema—it merely reinforces 'top holdings' and the PDF source. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema already fully documents parameter semantics.
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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Get top holdings for an NPS scheme') and adds a distinctive data source ('from the latest official NPS Trust scheme snapshot PDF'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_holdings or get_nps_portfolio.
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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative sibling tools. The only contextual hint is the NPS-specific scope, but there is no explicit usage direction.
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.
