get_fund_price

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses what is returned (current price and recent return), but says nothing about rate limits, authentication, error behavior, or the TEFAS 28-day request constraint mentioned only in the schema. For a no-annotation tool this is a significant 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?

Two tight sentences that front-load the core purpose (returns NAV and recent return) before giving input examples. No wasted 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?

With no output schema or annotations, the description covers the input side and the headline outputs (price + return), but it does not clarify the return shape (single value vs. time series implied by the days parameter) or the period semantics. Adequate but leaves ambiguity for a tool with a configurable date window.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters (fundCode accepts code or name, days is 7-28). The description's examples (GAF, ABA) reinforce the fundCode flexibility but add little beyond what the schema states, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb (returns) and resource (current NAV price and recent period return of a TEFAS-traded investment fund). The TEFAS/fund scope naturally distinguishes it from siblings like get_bist_price, get_crypto_price, and get_altin_gram_price, though it never names an alternative. Clear but lacks explicit sibling 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?

Usage is implied by the resource scope ('TEFAS'ta işlem gören bir yatırım fonu'), and examples of acceptable inputs (GAF, ABA, fund code or name) are given. However, there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to sibling price tools.

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