Screen and filter funds using quantitative criteria. Returns a ranked list.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max results (default: 20, max: 50) | |
| max_ter | No | Maximum TER in % (optional) | |
| category | No | Filter by SEBI category (optional) | |
| plan_type | No | Plan type filter (default: direct) | direct |
| min_sharpe | No | Minimum Sharpe ratio (optional) | |
| min_return_1y | No | Minimum 1-year return in % (optional) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates the tool returns a ranked list, which is useful, but does not disclose how ranking is determined, whether all funds are screened, or any limitations. The lack of details on side effects or read-only nature is a gap for an unannotated tool.
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 with no filler. It states the core action and the output format, making it highly efficient and front-loaded.
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?
The schema covers the filter parameters well, but the description leaves ambiguity about the ranking methodology and how criteria combine. There is no output schema, so the description should clarify ranking basis. Given the optional parameters and clear parameter descriptions, the tool is mostly usable, but the ranking gap prevents a higher score.
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 provides descriptions for all 6 parameters, giving 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific details beyond 'quantitative criteria,' which is generic. Since the schema already explains each parameter (e.g., limit, max_ter, category), the description does not need to compensate.
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's function: 'Screen and filter funds using quantitative criteria.' The verb 'screen' is specific and differentiates from sibling tools like search_funds or list_funds_in_category, though it does not explicitly name alternatives. The mention of 'quantitative criteria' adds distinctiveness.
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 usage for when a user needs to filter funds by quantitative metrics and receive a ranked output. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_funds or get_fund. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are given.
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.
