fund_listing

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

No annotations are provided, so the description technically carries the full burden. That said, the tool has zero parameters and is a read-only listing operation, so behavioral disclosure needs are minimal. The description does not state whether results are paginated, sorted, or what fields each fund entry contains, but this is partially mitigated by the presence of an output schema explaining the return value.

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?

A single clean sentence with zero waste. It is appropriately brief for a zero-parameter listing tool, though it could slightly differentiate itself more explicitly from sibling listing tools like listing_all_symbols by naming the domain context.

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?

For a zero-parameter, read-only listing tool with an output schema present, the description is reasonably complete. However, it doesn't convey the scope of what is included (e.g., fund categories, whether criteria like fund type or issuer are filters), nor whether the returned structure contains nested fund data. Given the output schema exists, a 3 is a fair middle-ground score.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter documentation burden to meet. The description accurately aligns with the 100% schema description coverage (nothing to describe). However, it adds no value on top of the schema since there are no inputs to elaborate on—hence a baseline-neutral score rather than higher.

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 'Get list of open-ended mutual funds available in Vietnam' uses a specific verb ('Get'), a specific resource ('list of open-ended mutual funds'), and scopes the domain ('Vietnam'). It distinguishes itself from the sibling tools which all center on stocks, FX, crypto, and indices—funds are a unique resource here.

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 the tool is for listing funds as opposed to the stock/crypto/history focused siblings, providing clear domain context. However, it offers no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., no mention of whether it pairs with stock_history or any other secondary lookup), nor any exclusions or prerequisites.

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