get_fund_details

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

With no annotations, the description carries full transparency burden. It reveals behavioral traits such as fund code resolution, optional type search (with speed implication), and the data returned. However, it omits potential side effects or auth requirements, though none are expected.

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 paragraph that front-loads the purpose and then details the output. It is concise without being terse, but could benefit from clearer structuring such as bullet points for the returned data elements.

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 an output schema exists (signal: true), the description need not explain return values. It adequately covers the main aspects (fund info, price history, allocation) and references parameter behavior (e.g., slower when type omitted). Some parameters like history_limit are omitted but are well-defined in the schema.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds context about fund code resolution and type search slower behavior, but does not significantly enhance understanding beyond the schema's detailed parameter descriptions.

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 the tool retrieves general info, optional price history, and portfolio allocation for a fund. It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('fund details'), and the purpose distinguishes it from siblings like get_portfolio_breakdown and get_historical_returns.

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 implies usage for retrieving fund details but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like analyze_performance or compare_funds. No when-not guidance is provided, leaving the agent to infer context from the sibling list.

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