Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
BharatPay MCP

BharatPay MCP

by angelina10504
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

get_mutual_fund_nav

Retrieve the current NAV of Indian mutual fund schemes by entering an AMFI scheme code or searching by name.

Instructions

Get the latest daily NAV for an Indian mutual fund scheme. Accepts either an AMFI scheme code (digits only) or a name fragment for fuzzy search. Data sourced from AMFI India's public daily file.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "query": "<query>"
    },
    "name": "get_mutual_fund_nav"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
queryYesScheme code (e.g., '118989') or name fragment (e.g., 'parag parikh flexi cap').

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Discloses data source (AMFI India's public daily file) and that it returns the latest daily NAV. No annotations exist, so description carries the burden—it is sufficient for a simple lookup tool, though could mention caching or 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.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, no wasted words. Immediately states purpose, then input options, then data source. Front-loaded with key info.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Output schema exists, so return values are covered. Description explains input types and data source. Could mention that NAV is typically from the previous day, but overall adequate for the tool's simplicity.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema covers 100% with parameter description. Description adds value by specifying 'digits only' for code and 'fuzzy search' for name fragment, which is not in schema. Baseline 3, plus 1 for extra context.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Clearly states it gets the latest daily NAV for an Indian mutual fund scheme, with specific verb and resource. Sibling tools are distinct financial info tools (IFSC, PAN, etc.), so no ambiguity.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Describes two valid input types (AMFI code or name fragment). Though it doesn't explicitly state when not to use, the sibling tools are in different domains, making usage context clear without additional guidance.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools