Map ambiguous Indian mutual fund names, ISINs, or AMFI scheme codes to a single scheme+plan identity before running any NAV, portfolio, or performance lookup.
Resolve a fund name, ISIN, or AMFI scheme code to unambiguous scheme+plan identity.
Always call this first — Indian scheme names are ambiguous (renames, near-identical names across AMCs, 4-8 plan/option variants per scheme).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | Yes |
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 discloses the accepted input forms and that the output is a disambiguated identity, plus the underlying ambiguity risk. It does not say what happens when multiple matches remain, how the limit affects results, or any auth/rate constraints.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and output, followed by a tightly worded justification for calling it first. No filler and nothing buried.
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?
No output schema and no annotations, so the description must cover behavior on its own. It gives input formats and the nature of the result but omits return shape, pagination via `limit`, and ambiguity-handling behavior, which an agent would need to use it reliably.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It usefully expands on `query` (accepts a fund name, ISIN, or AMFI scheme code), but says nothing about the `limit` parameter or the array form of `query`, leaving half the parameters undocumented.
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 (Resolve) and resource (fund name/ISIN/AMFI scheme code) and names the exact output: unambiguous scheme+plan identity. This clearly differentiates it from the sibling get_* tools, which fetch data rather than establish identity.
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?
"Always call this first" is an explicit, actionable directive with a rationale (ambiguous Indian scheme names, renames, plan variants). It does not name when-not to use it or a specific alternative, so it stops short of a full routing statement.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.