mf_get_navFetch the current published NAV for an Indian mutual fund scheme using its AMFI scheme code. Use it to retrieve official daily fund prices for valuation and reporting.
Get the latest published NAV for a mutual fund scheme (AMFI official data).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| scheme_code | Yes | AMFI scheme code (find via mf_search_schemes). |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that the data is the latest 'published' NAV from AMFI official data, which signals freshness/authority semantics, but it says nothing about update cadence, staleness, or error behavior for unknown scheme codes.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler that names verb, resource, and data source. Nothing to trim.
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?
An output schema exists so return values needn't be explained, and the single parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description is nearly complete for a simple lookup, lacking only timing/refresh behavior.
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% for the single scheme_code parameter, and the description adds no format or syntax detail beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 states a specific verb and resource ('Get the latest published NAV for a mutual fund scheme') and the word 'latest' implicitly distinguishes it from mf_get_nav_history. It stops short of naming the sibling alternative explicitly, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.
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 text offers no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and never mentions the related mf_get_nav_history or mf_search_schemes tools. The only workflow hint ('find via mf_search_schemes') lives in the schema, not the description, so the description itself leaves usage entirely to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.