get_scheme_historical_nav

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return structure (dictionary with metadata and data list sorted latest first) but does not mention potential issues like rate limits, authentication needs, or data size implications.

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?

The description is very concise with two sentences plus structured Args/Returns sections. Every part is informative, and it is front-loaded with the core purpose.

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?

Given no output schema, the description sufficiently explains the return format. The single parameter is well documented. However, it could mention potential pagination or size constraints for very large datasets.

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?

The only parameter 'scheme_code' is clearly explained with its type (AMFI numeric) and an example. Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description adds essential context beyond the schema.

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 explicitly states it retrieves the full historical NAV data for a mutual fund scheme, using specific verbs and resources. The sibling tool 'get_scheme_historical_nav_for_dates' suggests a more filtered alternative, so this tool is clearly distinguished.

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 implies use for all available dates but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings like 'get_scheme_historical_nav_for_dates'. No when-not or alternative guidance is provided.

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