get_fund_data

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 may return little or error for stocks, but does not detail other behavioral traits like expected response structure, performance, or any side effects. For a read-only getter tool, this is adequate but minimal.

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 short paragraphs: first lists what data is retrieved, second gives usage guidance. No redundant information. Every sentence adds value. 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 the tool has only one parameter, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is fairly complete. It explains the tool's domain (funds/ETFs), what data it returns, and when it fails. It doesn't describe the return format, but that is acceptable without an output schema.

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 must compensate. However, it does not elaborate on the 'symbol' parameter beyond its presence in the schema. It gives context that the tool works for funds/ETFs, but does not add format, examples, or constraints for the symbol parameter. This is insufficient given the lack of schema descriptions.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'ETF / mutual fund specifics', and lists the types of data returned (description, holdings, allocation, etc.). It also distinguishes the tool by noting it's only meaningful for funds/ETFs, differentiating it from siblings that might work for stocks.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('Only meaningful for funds/ETFs') and what happens with ordinary stocks ('returns little or an error'). It provides examples (SPY, VTI, QQQ) but does not explicitly name alternatives for stocks, though that is implied.

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