fund

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It implies a read-only 'snapshot' operation and lists the returned fields, but does not explicitly state read-only semantics, authentication requirements, or error conditions. It adds some value but not extensive 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 sentence that front-loads the key phrase 'Fund snapshot' and then enumerates the included data fields. Every word contributes meaning, with no redundancy or filler.

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 no output schema, the description does well to enumerate the return fields (NAV, yearly fee, risk group, etc.). For a tool with a single parameter, this is largely complete. However, it could clarify that NAV is the latest snapshot or specify any limitations, so slightly short of full completeness.

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 0%, so the description should compensate by explaining the parameter. It does not mention 'instrument_id' at all. The parameter name is somewhat self-explanatory as an identifier, but no context is given on where to obtain it or its format beyond the schema's integer type.

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 it returns a fund snapshot with NAV and specific metadata fields. The term 'snapshot' suggests a concise overview, which helps differentiate from sibling tools like 'fund_profile' and 'fund_profile_by_slug' that likely provide more detailed profiles. However, it does not explicitly name these alternatives.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus the sibling profile tools. The description only lists what data is returned, leaving the agent to infer context. There is no mention of prerequisites or exclusions.

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