rank_funds

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. Beyond that the description adds nothing behavioral: it does not state ranking direction (descending vs ascending), tie handling, or whether funds with missing metrics are excluded — all material for interpreting a ranking result.

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 front-loaded sentence with the verb, scope, and metric list, and no filler. Every clause carries information an agent needs to select the tool.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the period default is covered by the schema. However, for a ranking tool the sort direction and treatment of missing values are core semantics left unstated, leaving a real gap for a four-parameter tool.

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 limit, metric, period, and fund_type are already documented, including the enum values and the 'latest' default for period. The description merely restates the metric options and adds no format or semantics beyond the schema, 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?

The description gives a specific verb (rank) and resource (FI funds) plus the exact metrics available, which lets an agent distinguish this from per-fund siblings like get_fund_nav and get_fund_flows. It stops short of naming an alternative tool, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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 only implied: an agent can infer this is the tool for cross-fund comparisons rather than single-fund lookups. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or pointer to a sibling such as league_table, which could plausibly overlap.

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