Fund Data

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It lists supported data types and output formats, implying read-only behavior. However, it does not explicitly state that it is read-only or mention any side effects, rate limits, or pagination. The description is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 a single sentence, very concise, and front-loaded with the core functionality. It covers the main purpose without unnecessary words. Every part is earned, although it could be slightly expanded to include important caveats.

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 complexity (7 parameters, 1 enum, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It does not explain return value structure, data formats, or potential performance implications. The schema partially fills gaps with parameter descriptions, but the description lacks overall context for an AI agent to use it effectively.

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?

All parameters are described in the schema with complete coverage. The description adds little beyond the schema, merely summarizing data types and output formats. Since schema coverage is 100%, baseline is 3; the description does not significantly enhance parameter understanding.

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 comprehensive fund data and lists specific data types (fund list, managers, NAV, dividends, holdings). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like stock_data or company_performance by focusing specifically on public offering funds.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks information about prerequisites, handling large datasets, or fallback options. While the schema includes a note about large data for certain types, the description itself does not guide usage context.

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