get_scheme_quote

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 that the tool returns a dictionary with specific keys (scheme_code, scheme_name, last_updated, nav) but does not mention potential failure modes (e.g., invalid scheme code), rate limits, or update frequency. Adequate given the simple read-only nature.

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 concise, with a clear first sentence stating the purpose followed by Args and Returns sections. Every sentence adds value, and the structure is easily scannable.

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 tool is simple (one parameter, no output schema). The description explains the parameter and output sufficiently. Minor gap: does not clarify whether the NAV is real-time or end-of-day, but this is not critical for basic usage.

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 fully compensates. It explains that scheme_code is an AMFI numeric code, provides a concrete example, and directs users to sibling tools for finding codes. This adds meaningful context beyond the schema's title.

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?

Clearly states that the tool retrieves the latest NAV quote for a mutual fund scheme, specifying the return fields. The description uses a specific verb ("Get") and resource ("NAV quote"), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_scheme_details or get_scheme_historical_nav.

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?

Provides guidance on how to find the required scheme code using sibling tools (get_scheme_codes or search_scheme_by_name). However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over other quote-related siblings (e.g., get_scheme_details).

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