Mf Sip Calculator

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it does disclose two real behavioral traits: it computes from actual historical NAVs (not assumed returns) and it returns XIRR. It says nothing about whether the operation is side-effect-free, how missing/partial NAV data is handled, or any rate limits.

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 dense sentence with the action front-loaded and the two most distinctive attributes (historical NAVs, XIRR) appended. No filler and 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 need not be described, and all four parameters are fully documented in the schema. The only meaningful omission is routing guidance against the nearest sibling mf_compute_returns; otherwise an agent has enough to call this correctly.

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 100%, and each parameter (scheme_code, monthly_amount, from_date, to_date with its default) is already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, unit, or edge-case detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Simulate a monthly SIP in a scheme') plus the data basis ('actual historical NAVs') and an output detail ('XIRR included'). It implicitly separates itself from mf_compute_returns, but never names or contrasts that sibling explicitly.

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?

There is no guidance on when to choose this over mf_compute_returns or mf_get_nav_history, no stated prerequisites (e.g. that scheme_code must come from mf_search_schemes), and no exclusions. The agent must infer usage entirely from the one-line summary.

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