get_mutual_fund_balances

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden. It conveys this is a read-only operation ('Get') and discloses the returned data elements: unit counts and NAV values. It does not clarify scope (e.g., current portfolio vs all portfolios), but the operation is non-destructive and simple.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It quickly states the action, resource, and key return contents in under 15 words.

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 parameterless read tool, the description is mostly complete: it names the asset class and explicitly states what the returned holdings include. The only notable gap is whether the data is scoped to a specific portfolio, but given no parameters and the sibling tool structure, this is a minor ambiguity.

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 the baseline is 4. The schema has no fields to document, and the description adds useful semantics by naming the returned data points (unit counts and NAV values).

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 gets mutual fund holdings, explicitly names the Indonesian term 'Reksadana,' and specifies the key return components (unit counts and NAV values). This distinguishes it from sibling balance tools for other asset classes.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like get_equity_balances or get_portfolio_summary, nor does it state exclusions or preferred contexts. Usage is only implied by the tool's name.

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