FonParam MCP

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools have distinct purposes, such as analyze_fund for investment analysis and list_funds for listing funds. However, there is some overlap between inflation_rates, latest_inflation_rate, and monthly_inflation_rate, which could cause confusion in selecting the right tool for inflation data. Similarly, statistics, latest_statistics, and statistics_by_date have overlapping functions, though descriptions help differentiate them.
Naming Consistency5/5
Tool names follow a consistent snake_case pattern with clear verb_noun structures, such as list_funds, compare_funds, and fund_historical_data. There are no deviations in naming conventions, making the set predictable and easy to navigate for an agent.
Tool Count5/5
With 15 tools, the server is well-scoped for its domain of fund and investment analysis. Each tool appears to serve a specific purpose, such as analyzing funds, listing companies, or retrieving inflation data, without feeling excessive or insufficient for the apparent scope.
Completeness4/5
The tool set covers key areas like fund analysis, company details, inflation data, and statistics, providing good CRUD-like operations for the domain. Minor gaps exist, such as no explicit tools for updating or deleting data, but agents can likely work around these given the read-oriented nature of the server's purpose.
Average 2.7/5 across 15 of 15 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 2 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'gets' (retrieves) statistics, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify what format the statistics are returned in, whether there are rate limits, authentication requirements, or any side effects. The description is too vague to provide meaningful behavioral context beyond the basic action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short sentence ('Son istatistikleri getirir'), which is concise but under-specified rather than efficiently informative. It lacks front-loaded critical details (e.g., what statistics, for what purpose), making it feel incomplete rather than optimally structured. It earns its place minimally but doesn't excel in clarity or structure.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (implied by sibling tools in a financial domain) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'latest statistics' means (e.g., time frame, data source, return format), leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to understand how to use this tool effectively in context with other tools like 'statistics' or 'statistics_by_date'.
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?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage (empty schema), so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter information, which is appropriate here. A baseline of 4 is given as the description doesn't need to compensate for any parameter gaps, though it could theoretically mention implicit parameters (like none required).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Son istatistikleri getirir' (Turkish for 'Gets the latest statistics') is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'latest_statistics' in verb form. It doesn't specify what kind of statistics (financial, economic, fund-related) or from what domain, though the sibling tools suggest a financial context. The description fails to distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'statistics' or 'statistics_by_date'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to choose 'latest_statistics' over 'statistics' (which might provide broader or historical data) or 'statistics_by_date' (which likely allows date-specific queries), nor does it indicate any prerequisites or exclusions for usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states it 'gets' historical values, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't cover critical aspects like authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or what the return format looks like (e.g., structured data, pagination). This leaves significant gaps for a tool with 6 parameters and no output schema.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence in Turkish, front-loading the core purpose without unnecessary words. However, it's overly brief for a tool with 6 parameters and no annotations, potentially under-specifying rather than being optimally concise. It earns a 4 for zero waste but could benefit from slightly more detail given the context.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (6 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return values, error cases, or behavioral traits like data freshness or limitations. Siblings like 'analyze_fund' suggest this might be part of a financial analysis suite, but no integration context is provided. The description is inadequate for safe and effective use by an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for all parameters (e.g., 'code' as fund code, dates in YYYY-MM-DD, enums for interval and order). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining parameter interactions or default behaviors. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting, but no extra value is added.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Fonun geçmiş değerlerini getirir' (Get historical values of the fund) states a basic purpose but is vague. It specifies the resource ('fon' - fund) and a general action ('getirir' - get), but lacks specificity about what historical values (e.g., prices, returns) and doesn't distinguish from siblings like 'analyze_fund' or 'compare_funds'. It's not tautological but remains too broad for clear differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description implies it retrieves historical data, but there's no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'statistics_by_date' or 'top_performing_funds'. Usage is implied by the name and description alone, with no explicit context or alternatives stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'analysis' but doesn't clarify if this is a read-only operation, what permissions might be needed, whether it performs calculations or fetches data, or what the output format might be. For a tool with 7 parameters and no output schema, this is a significant gap in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence in Turkish, making it concise. However, it's not front-loaded with critical details—it could better prioritize key information like the tool's specific analysis type. There's no wasted text, but it's under-specified rather than optimally structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
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, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the analysis entails, what results to expect, or how to interpret outputs. For a financial analysis tool with multiple investment parameters, more context is needed to guide effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly with descriptions, enums, and constraints. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining relationships between parameters (e.g., how 'yearlyIncreaseType' interacts with 'yearlyIncreaseValue'). Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Fon için yatırım analizi yapar' (Performs investment analysis for funds) states the general purpose but lacks specificity about what kind of analysis it performs. It doesn't distinguish from siblings like 'compare_funds' or 'fund_historical_data', which might offer overlapping functionality. The description is vague about the analysis scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'compare_funds' or 'fund_historical_data'. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, exclusions, or specific contexts for usage, leaving the agent to infer based on parameter names alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states the action ('listeler') without disclosing behavioral traits like read-only vs. destructive, authentication needs, rate limits, or output format. This leaves critical operational context missing for safe and effective use.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence in Turkish, making it appropriately concise and front-loaded. However, it lacks structure for more complex details, but given the tool's simplicity, this is acceptable with minimal waste.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what 'inflation data' includes (e.g., rates, dates, sources), how results are formatted, or any limitations. For a data-listing tool with 2 parameters, this leaves too many unknowns for effective agent use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting 'start_date' and 'end_date' parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as date format examples or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Enflasyon verilerini listeler' (Lists inflation data) states a clear verb ('listeler') and resource ('inflation data'), but it's vague about scope and format. It doesn't distinguish from siblings like 'latest_inflation_rate' or 'monthly_inflation_rate', leaving ambiguity about what specific inflation data is returned.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'latest_inflation_rate' and 'monthly_inflation_rate', the description lacks context on whether this tool is for historical ranges, aggregated data, or other use cases, offering no help in tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the action ('listeler') without mentioning whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, how it handles errors, or what the output format might be. For a tool with 6 parameters and no output schema, this is a significant gap in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence in Turkish ('Günlük istatistikleri listeler'), which is appropriately concise. However, it's not front-loaded with critical context, and the brevity contributes to vagueness rather than clarity, slightly reducing its effectiveness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (6 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what 'statistics' entail, how results are structured, or usage context relative to siblings. This leaves the agent under-informed for proper tool selection and invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with all parameters well-documented in the input schema (e.g., date formats, enum values, numeric ranges). The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying daily statistics, which is partially covered by the date parameters. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Günlük istatistikleri listeler' (Lists daily statistics) states a clear verb ('listeler') and resource ('istatistikleri'), but it's vague about what specific statistics are being listed. It doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'latest_statistics' or 'statistics_by_date', leaving ambiguity about its unique function.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'latest_statistics' (likely for recent data) and 'statistics_by_date' (possibly for specific dates), there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to guess based on parameter names alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states what the tool does (retrieves statistics) without mentioning permissions, rate limits, data format, or any side effects. This is inadequate for a tool that likely involves data retrieval, as it leaves key behavioral traits unspecified.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool, though it could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what statistics are returned, their format, or any behavioral context. For a tool with one parameter but no structured output information, more detail is needed to fully guide the agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'date' fully documented in the input schema. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't explain date constraints or format nuances), so it meets the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Belirli bir günün istatistiklerini getirir' (Retrieves statistics for a specific day) states a clear verb ('getirir') and resource ('istatistikler'), but it's vague about what type of statistics (e.g., financial, economic, or general) and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'statistics' or 'latest_statistics'. It provides a basic purpose but lacks specificity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'statistics' or 'latest_statistics'. The description implies usage for a specific date, but it doesn't mention prerequisites, exclusions, or any context for choosing this over other tools, leaving the agent with no explicit usage instructions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states the action ('listeler') without disclosing behavioral traits like pagination behavior (implied by 'page' and 'limit' parameters but not explained), rate limits, authentication needs, or what data is returned. For a listing tool with 7 parameters, this is insufficient behavioral context.
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence in Turkish with zero waste. It's appropriately sized for a basic listing tool and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word earns its place without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return format, pagination, filtering behavior (beyond what parameters imply), or how it differs from siblings. For a tool with this complexity and lack of structured data, more context is needed to guide effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all 7 parameters with descriptions and constraints. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters beyond implying listing functionality. Baseline is 3 when schema does the heavy lifting, even though the description doesn't compensate or add value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Portföy yönetim şirketlerini listeler' (Lists portfolio management companies) states a clear verb ('listeler') and resource ('portfolio management companies'), but it's vague about scope and doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'list_funds' or 'company_details'. It provides a basic purpose but lacks specificity about what kind of listing this is.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'company_details' (for specific company info) and 'list_funds' (for listing funds), the description doesn't indicate this is for browsing/listing companies rather than getting details or other resources. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action ('lists') without any information about permissions required, rate limits, pagination, or what the output looks like (e.g., format, fields). For a tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.
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?
The description is a single, efficient phrase ('Fon tiplerini listeler') that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to grasp immediately. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (4 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return values, usage context, or behavioral traits. While the schema covers parameters well, the lack of output schema means the description should ideally hint at what's returned, but it doesn't. This leaves the agent with insufficient information for effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear parameter descriptions (e.g., 'sort' for sorting field, 'order' for direction, 'min_total_funds' for minimum fund count). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. According to the rules, with high schema coverage (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Fon tiplerini listeler' (Turkish for 'Lists fund types') states a clear verb+resource combination, indicating it retrieves fund types. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'fund_type_details' (which likely provides detailed information about a specific fund type) or 'list_funds' (which likely lists individual funds rather than fund types). The purpose is understandable but lacks sibling distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to choose 'list_fund_types' over 'fund_type_details' (for details on a specific type) or 'list_funds' (for listing actual funds). There's no context about prerequisites, such as whether authentication is needed or if it's for browsing versus analysis.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves data but does not specify whether it's read-only (implied by 'getirir'), what permissions might be needed, rate limits, output format, or any side effects. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
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?
The description is a single, clear sentence in Turkish that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it efficient and easy to understand at a glance.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a tool that retrieves 'top performing funds' with no annotations, no output schema, and incomplete behavioral details, the description is insufficient. It does not explain what defines 'top performing', how results are returned, or any limitations, leaving critical gaps for an AI agent to use the tool effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 1 parameter with 100% description coverage ('Referans fon kodları (virgülle ayrılmış, opsiyonel)' - Reference fund codes (comma-separated, optional)). The description does not add any meaning beyond this, such as explaining how reference funds affect the results or providing examples. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, as the schema adequately documents the parameter.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'En iyi performans gösteren fonları getirir' (Turkish for 'Retrieves the best performing funds') states a clear verb ('getirir' - retrieves) and resource ('fonları' - funds), but lacks specificity about what defines 'top performing' (e.g., by return metrics, time period, or ranking criteria). It does not distinguish from siblings like 'list_funds' or 'compare_funds', which might overlap in functionality without clearer differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'list_funds' (which might list all funds) or 'compare_funds' (which might compare specific funds). There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual triggers for selecting this tool over others, leaving usage ambiguous.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden but only states what the tool does ('brings data'), not how it behaves. It lacks details on data freshness, source, format, error handling, or any constraints like rate limits or authentication needs, which are critical for a data-fetching tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence in Turkish, front-loading the core action. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool, though it could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no annotations, no output schema, and no parameters, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'latest inflation data' entails (e.g., metric type, units, timestamp) or the return format, leaving gaps in understanding how to interpret results.
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?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter semantics, but this is acceptable given the lack of parameters, aligning with the baseline for zero parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Son enflasyon verisini getirir' (Turkish for 'Brings the latest inflation data') states a clear verb ('getirir') and resource ('inflation data'), but it's vague about scope and doesn't differentiate from siblings like 'inflation_rates' or 'monthly_inflation_rate'. It specifies 'latest' but doesn't clarify if this is real-time, cached, or a specific metric.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'inflation_rates' or 'monthly_inflation_rate'. The description implies it's for the most recent data, but it doesn't state exclusions (e.g., historical data) or prerequisites, leaving usage context unclear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it retrieves details but doesn't specify what kind of details (e.g., financial data, contact info), whether it's a read-only operation, if there are rate limits, authentication needs, or error conditions. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how to use it effectively.
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?
The description is a single, concise sentence in Turkish that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what details are returned, the format of the response, or any behavioral aspects like error handling. For a tool that likely returns structured company data, this lack of context makes it inadequate for an agent to use confidently.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds no parameter information beyond what's already in the input schema, which has 100% coverage with clear descriptions for both parameters ('code' and 'include_funds'). Since the schema fully documents the parameters, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't need to compensate but also doesn't add extra value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('getirir' - retrieves/fetches) and resource ('Portföy yönetim şirketi detaylarını' - portfolio management company details), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_companies' which might list companies without details, so it's not fully specific about what distinguishes this tool from alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to choose this over 'list_companies' for details versus listing, or when to use it in relation to other tools like 'analyze_fund' or 'compare_funds'. There's no context about prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action (compare funds) but doesn't describe what the comparison entails (e.g., metrics compared, output format, whether it's read-only or has side effects). For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.
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?
The description is extremely concise—a single sentence in Turkish that directly states the purpose and scope ('Fonları karşılaştırır (2-5 fon)'). It is front-loaded with no wasted words, making it easy to parse quickly. Every part of the sentence earns its place by specifying the action and resource limits.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that likely returns comparison data. It doesn't explain what the comparison outputs (e.g., performance metrics, risk analysis) or any behavioral traits. For a tool with no structured context, more detail is needed to fully understand its use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'codes' parameter clearly documented as 'Karşılaştırılacak fon kodları' (fund codes to compare). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'karşılaştırır' (compares) and the resource 'fonları' (funds), specifying the scope '2-5 fon' (2-5 funds). It distinguishes from siblings like analyze_fund or list_funds by focusing on comparison rather than analysis or listing. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings (e.g., top_performing_funds might involve comparison).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context for comparison, or when to choose this over siblings like analyze_fund or top_performing_funds. The user must infer usage from the name and description alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves details, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits such as error handling, response format, data freshness, or potential side effects. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
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?
The description is a single, clear sentence in Turkish that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, with zero waste, making it highly concise and well-structured for its intended function.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (simple retrieval with one parameter) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'detaylar' (details) includes in the return values, behavioral aspects, or usage context. For a tool with no structured output or annotations, more information is needed to be complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the input schema provides. Schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'type' documented as 'Fon tipi kodu' (fund type code) and an enum list. Since the schema fully describes the parameter, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate or add extra meaning.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Belirli bir fon tipinin detaylarını getirir' translates to 'Retrieves details of a specific fund type.' This specifies the verb (retrieves/getirir) and resource (fund type details/fon tipinin detaylarını). However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from siblings like 'list_fund_types' or 'fund_historical_data,' which might also involve fund type information.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context for selection among sibling tools (e.g., 'list_fund_types' for listing types vs. this for details), or any exclusions. Usage is implied only by the purpose statement, with no explicit when/when-not instructions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it mentions listing and filtering capabilities, it doesn't describe important behavioral aspects: whether this is a read-only operation, what the response format looks like, whether it supports pagination (though parameters suggest it does), rate limits, authentication requirements, or any side effects. The description is minimal and leaves critical behavioral information unspecified.
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?
The description is extremely concise - a single Turkish sentence that directly states the tool's core functionality. There's no wasted language, repetition, or unnecessary elaboration. It's front-loaded with the primary purpose and efficiently communicates the essential capability. This is an excellent example of conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 11 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't address the tool's behavioral characteristics, response format, error conditions, or how to interpret results. While the schema documents parameters well, the description fails to provide the contextual understanding needed to use this tool effectively, especially given the complexity implied by numerous filtering options.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, meaning all 11 parameters are well-documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema - it doesn't explain parameter relationships, provide usage examples, or clarify how multiple filters interact. With complete schema documentation, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the description doesn't add value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Yatırım fonlarını listeler ve filtreleme imkanı sunar' (Lists investment funds and provides filtering capability). It specifies the verb ('listeler' - lists) and resource ('yatırım fonları' - investment funds), and mentions filtering as an additional capability. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'list_companies' or 'list_fund_types' that might also list different types of financial entities.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are multiple sibling tools that could potentially overlap (like 'list_companies', 'list_fund_types', 'top_performing_funds'), but the description doesn't explain when this specific fund listing tool is appropriate versus those other listing tools. No usage context, prerequisites, or exclusions are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool fetches data (implying a read-only operation) but doesn't describe what 'enflasyon verisini' includes (e.g., rate value, source, format), error handling, rate limits, or authentication needs. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence in Turkish that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse. Every part of the sentence contributes to understanding the purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (fetching specific data), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the inflation data includes (e.g., numerical rate, metadata), potential errors, or how results are structured. For a data retrieval tool with no structured output information, more context is needed to guide effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description mentions 'Belirli bir ay ve yıldaki' (a specific month and year), which aligns with the two parameters in the schema. Since schema description coverage is 100% (with descriptions for 'year' and 'month'), the description adds minimal value beyond what the schema provides. It doesn't explain parameter interactions or provide additional context, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'getirir' (fetches/retrieves) 'enflasyon verisini' (inflation data) for 'Belirli bir ay ve yıldaki' (a specific month and year). It specifies the verb (fetch) and resource (inflation data) with temporal scope. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'inflation_rates' or 'latest_inflation_rate', which prevents a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'inflation_rates' (which might provide multiple rates) or 'latest_inflation_rate' (which might get the most recent data), nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is implied by the temporal parameters but not explicitly stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![fonparam-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/kemalersin/fonparam-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/kemalersin/fonparam-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![fonparam-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/kemalersin/fonparam-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/kemalersin/fonparam-mcp)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/kemalersin/fonparam-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server