tefas_fon_analiz

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It mentions analysis scope but does not state whether the operation is read-only, what data source is used, what the output looks like, or any limitations, leaving the agent without critical context.

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 compact sentence that expands the TEFAS acronym and enumerates the analyzed metrics without filler. It is front-loaded and every word adds 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?

The tool is relatively simple with one well-documented parameter and an output schema, so return details need not be explained. However, the description lacks when-to-use context and behavioral caveats, making it adequate but not fully complete for an agent deciding among many sibling analysis tools.

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 already documents the single parameter 'fon_kodu' with a default value and examples, achieving 100% schema description coverage. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline score of 3 is 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 clearly states the tool performs TEFAS fund price, AUM size, and return analysis, identifying a specific resource and analysis scope. This distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on KAP filings, SPK compliance, and macro indicators, though the verb 'analiz yap' remains slightly generic.

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 given about when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites are mentioned, and no exclusions or conditions are described. The appropriate context must be inferred entirely from the tool name and the bare description.

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