fund_historical_data

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.