List all GIFT City IFSC retail funds (USD-denominated offshore mutual funds available to NRIs and global investors). Returns fund metadata, TER, benchmark, and latest NAV.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return payload (fund metadata, TER, benchmark, latest NAV) and the scope of the list. It does not mention ordering, pagination, or data source freshness, but for a zero-parameter list operation, the disclosure is solid and useful.
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 exactly two sentences, front-loaded with the action verb 'List', and contains no redundant or filler wording. Every phrase adds context about the fund type and return fields.
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's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description covers the essential context: what is listed and what is returned. It lacks explicit differentiation from sibling list tools, but the defined universe of GIFT City funds provides enough context for an agent to decide when to use it. Overall, it is adequately complete for the tool's complexity.
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?
There are zero parameters and the schema is empty, so there are no semantics to explain. The description correctly omits parameter details. Per guidelines, a zero-parameter tool gets a baseline of 4.
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 ('List'), the resource ('GIFT City IFSC retail funds'), and defines what those are (USD-denominated offshore mutual funds for NRIs and global investors). This specificity distinguishes it from broader tools like list_funds_in_category or search_funds.
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 its use case by defining the exact universe of funds, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives. There is no mention of 'use this when you need all GIFT funds' or exclusions. Sibling names are available, but no comparison is made.
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.
