top_performing_funds

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.