amfi_fund_flows

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the AUM data is 'approximate' and that data is monthly, which provides some insight, but lacks details on rate limits, authentication needs, or side effects.

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 moderately concise, with a clear list of provided data and a relevant pricing note. It is front-loaded with the core purpose. However, the pricing information could be considered slightly tangential.

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 zero input parameters and the presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers the main outputs (AUM, SIP flows, folios, scheme breakdown). It does not repeat the output schema but adds context about data sources and approximation.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the description adds meaning by explaining what the tool returns, which goes beyond the empty schema. According to guidelines, 0 parameters gets a baseline of 4.

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 provides AMFI mutual fund industry data, including specific data points like total AUM, SIP flows, and scheme counts by category. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on industry-level aggregate data, which is unique among the listed siblings.

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 context by mentioning that similar data costs $17,500/year from Morningstar Direct, implying this tool offers a free alternative. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor provide exclusions.

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