Mf Get Nav History

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It usefully states the date format and that the range is inclusive, but says nothing about default behavior when from_date/to_date are null, result volume, or ordering.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with the format and inclusivity detail attached where it matters. No filler.

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-value explanation is not required. However, with two optional nullable date parameters, the description omits the most consequential behavior for an agent — what the defaults do (e.g. return full NAV history) — leaving a real gap.

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 description coverage is already 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds boundary semantics the schema does not state — that the range is inclusive and uses ISO YYYY-MM-DD — which is meaningful for a date-range tool.

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?

States a specific verb (get), resource (historical NAVs), and scope (for a scheme between dates), so the purpose is unambiguous. It does not explicitly name the sibling it differs from (mf_get_nav for a single/latest NAV), so the differentiation from that neighbor is left to inference.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance, no mention of the alternative mf_get_nav, and no note on what happens when the optional dates are omitted. Usage is only vaguely implied by the word 'historical' in the name.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.