get_scheme_quote

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

No annotations, so the description carries the burden; it establishes this is a read of the latest value only (not historical), which is meaningful behavioral context. It omits freshness/caching semantics, whether scheme_code must exist or how a missing code behaves, and any rate or auth information.

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 no filler; every clause ('latest', 'basic', 'by AMFI scheme code') adds information.

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 output schema covers return values and there is only one parameter, so the remaining gap is guidance on sourcing a valid scheme_code and on how this differs from the history/detail siblings. Adequate but with clear omissions for an agent choosing among 20 siblings.

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 0%, so the description must compensate; it does identify that the identifier is an AMFI scheme code (not a name or ISIN), which is genuinely useful. It gives no format, example, or guidance on obtaining a valid code via search_schemes.

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 ('scheme quote'), and the returned content ('Latest NAV and basic quote'), which distinguishes it from the detail and history siblings well enough. It does not explicitly differentiate from get_scheme_details or get_nav_history, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'Latest' hints at a current-snapshot read versus get_nav_history, and 'basic quote' hints at a lighter alternative to get_scheme_details. Neither alternative is named and no when-not-to-use condition is given.

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