get_fon_portfoy

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

No annotations provided, so the description bears full burden. It discloses the return type (percentages) and default behavior for 'tarih' (last business day if empty), but lacks information on whether the operation is read-only, required permissions, or any side effects. Adequate for a simple query tool.

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?

Extremely concise: a one-line purpose statement followed by two parameter descriptions. No unnecessary words, information is front-loaded and easy to parse.

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 tool's simplicity (2 parameters, no output schema), the description fully covers purpose, parameters with defaults, and return type (category-based percentages). No gaps for a query tool of this nature.

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%, but the description adds meaningful semantics: 'fon_kodu' is a TEFAS fund code, 'tarih' is in YYYYMMDD format with a default of last business day. This covers all parameters and adds value beyond the schema's type-only definitions.

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 uses a specific verb 'returns' and resource 'portfolio distribution of a fund (category-based percentages)', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'get_fon_fiyat' (price) and 'karsilastir_fonlar' (compare).

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only states what it does, without providing context or exclusions for similar tools like 'donemsel_getiri_ozeti' or 'ara_fon'.

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