fund_profile

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 lists the included content but does not mention whether any authentication is required, rate limits, potential pagination, or the return format. Since it is a read-only profile tool, the lack of any explicit statement about its safety or constraints leaves a gap.

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, front-loaded sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose and enumerates its content. Every word adds value, with no fluff or repetition. It is appropriately concise and well-structured.

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?

The description lists many returned fields, giving a sense of completeness, but it lacks usage guidance and does not describe the return structure or any limitations. With no output schema, it could provide more context about data shape or timeframes. It is adequate for a simple profile tool but has clear gaps in alternative differentiation and parameter explanation.

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 schema describes instrument_id as an integer but provides no description, and schema description coverage is 0%. The tool description does not mention instrument_id at all, nor does it explain how to identify the fund or what the parameter means. Since the param name is intuitive, it earns a minimal score, but the description fails to add any meaningful semantics beyond the raw schema.

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 identifies the tool as providing a 'Full fund screening profile' and enumerates specific data points (NAV history, holdings, fund managers, fees, minimum investment, returns). This is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like fund_profile_by_slug or etf_profile by emphasizing the comprehensive fund-focused scope.

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 explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies using it for a full fund profile, but it does not mention that fund_profile_by_slug exists for slug-based lookups or any other exclusions. Lacks any when/when-not guidance.

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