get_fund_data

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full transparency burden. It discloses return data (overview, weightings, holdings) and a key behavior (raises for stocks/crypto). It does not cover auth needs or rate limits, but for a read-like operation this is adequate.

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 purpose, followed by return data and constraint. No unnecessary words. Every sentence earns its place.

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 the tool's simplicity (2 params, output schema exists), the description covers purpose, return data, and error condition. No gaps remain for effective use. The output schema handles return structure details, so description is complete.

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 100% and the schema descriptions for 'symbol' and 'limit' are already detailed with examples and constraints. The description adds overall context but not directly to parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool retrieves fund/ETF profile data for a Yahoo symbol, listing specific data types (overview, weightings, holdings). It explicitly notes it is fund/ETF-only and raises for stocks and crypto, which distinguishes it from siblings like get_company_info or get_quote.

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 provides clear context: use for fund/ETF symbols only, and raises for stocks/crypto. Although it does not name alternative tools, the exclusion is explicit, fulfilling a when-not directive. The agent can infer alternatives from sibling names.

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