get_major_shareholders
Get top shareholders (institutions + individuals).
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| ticker | Yes |
Output Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Rockmoon Financial Data
by ai.rockmoon
TDQS
C2.4/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It does not disclose how 'top' is defined, data recency, pagination, or authorization. The default limit of 20 is in schema but not explained.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely short, front-loaded, but sacrifices clarity. Could include more details without losing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of multiple sibling tools with overlapping names, the description fails to clarify scope or output. Output schema exists but is not leveraged in the description.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention any parameters (ticker, limit). It adds no meaning beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description specifies verb 'get' and resource 'top shareholders', including both institutions and individuals. However, with sibling tools like get_institutional_holdings and get_director_holdings, it does not explain how this tool differs (e.g., broader scope or aggregate view).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Given many sibling tools, the absence of usage context is a significant gap.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
B3.2/5.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool targets a distinct financial data aspect (e.g., balance sheet vs income statement vs cash flow; different holding types; metrics vs history). No overlapping purposes.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow verb_noun pattern with snake_case (e.g., get_balance_sheet, compare_metrics). Consistent and predictable.
Tool Count4/5
19 tools is slightly above the typical 3-15 range but covers a broad domain (statements, metrics, holdings, screening). Still reasonable and well-scoped.
Completeness4/5
Covers most key financial data needs: statements, metrics, insider trades, institutional holdings, screen/search. Minor gaps like earnings estimates or dividend history are absent but core workflows are complete.