mutual_fund_nav

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the data source (AMFI database), states that no API key is required, and provides examples of return values (NAV, change, 7-day history). This goes beyond a minimal description, though it does not cover error cases or rate limits.

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 concise and well-structured. It front-loads the primary purpose, adds a brief note on the data source and authentication, and then presents clear args and examples. Every sentence contributes value.

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 tool with a single parameter and an output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It explains the input format, provides examples, states the data source, and hints at the return content (NAV, change, history). This leaves little ambiguity for an agent.

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 input schema has a single 'query' parameter with zero description coverage. The description compensates fully by explaining that 'query' accepts either a fund name or a numeric scheme code, with concrete examples. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Get the latest NAV and details for any Indian mutual fund.' It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like stock_quote by focusing on mutual fund NAV. The examples further reinforce the purpose by showing fund names and scheme codes.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: for any Indian mutual fund NAV lookup. It gives examples of valid queries, implying usage. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.

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