Get NPS NAV history for a scheme, 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 | NPS scheme code, e.g. SM001001 |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits itself. While 'Get' implies a read operation, it does not describe return format, pagination, rate limits, or any limitations. It adds little beyond the tool name and schema.
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 uses zero redundant words. It directly communicates the core purpose and optionality without 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 read tool with one required parameter and full schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. However, without an output schema or annotations, it does not explain what the NAV history response contains or any edge cases, leaving the agent with limited context.
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 schema already provides 100% coverage with detailed parameter descriptions (format, example, optionality). The description only reiterates the optional date-range filtering, adding no meaningful information beyond the schema.
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 action (Get), the resource (NPS NAV history), and the scope (for a scheme), with an optional date range filter. It differentiates from sibling tools like get_nav_history by explicitly scoping to NPS schemes.
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 implies the tool is used to retrieve NPS-specific NAV history for a scheme, providing clear context. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the NPS qualifier distinguishes it from more general NAV tools.
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.
