institutional_holdingsAn institutional manager's latest 13F-HR parsed and aggregated: top positions by value with shares, CUSIP, and share of portfolio. Works on managers (Berkshire, Bridgewater...), not operating companies. Pinned by accession number. Costs $0.05 per call.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| top | No | Positions to return. Default 20. | |
| company | Yes | Manager name or CIK, e.g. Berkshire Hathaway. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds valuable context: the cost per call ($0.05), the data included (top positions, shares, CUSIP, share of portfolio), and the scope (managers only). No contradictions with annotations.
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 compact (three sentences) and front-loaded with the core functionality. It includes cost and scope without fluff. The phrase 'Pinned by accession number' is slightly cryptic but not redundant.
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?
Given the tool's moderate complexity, the description covers what data is returned (shares, CUSIP, share of portfolio), the scope (managers, not operating companies), and cost. Since there is no output schema, it adequately describes the return content. The 'top' parameter default and max are in the schema, so no further detail is needed.
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%, providing clear descriptions for 'company' (manager name or CIK) and 'top' (positions to return, default 20). The description reinforces 'company' by giving examples and mentions 'top positions by value', but adds no new parameter-specific syntax or constraints 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 clearly states the tool returns an institutional manager's latest 13F-HR parsed and aggregated, listing top positions by value with shares, CUSIP, and share of portfolio. It explicitly distinguishes from operating companies, differentiating it from sibling tools like company_financials or lookup_company.
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 specifies it works on managers (Berkshire, Bridgewater...) and not operating companies, giving clear context for when to use it. It does not name alternative tools for operating companies, but the exclusion and mention of 'Pinned by accession number' imply a focused use case.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools have clearly written descriptions, but several pairs overlap semantically: token_price/token_report, latest_filings/recent_filings, and institutional_holdings/who_holds/activist_stakes all require careful reading to pick the right one. The overlap is not severe enough for a 2, but it is still more than the occasional confusion.
Names are consistently snake_case and mostly descriptive, but the set does not follow one naming convention. It mixes noun phrases (crop_data, token_report, insider_trades) with verb phrases (lookup_company, compare_filings, verify_financial_claim), and pairs like latest_filings/recent_filings create avoidable confusion.
31 tools is too many for what is nominally an SEC Filings server, and the scope sprawls into unrelated domains such as EVM gas, tokens, prediction markets, crop data, and x402 auditing. The count does not feel earned by a coherent workflow; it feels like an uncurated bundle of endpoints.
The SEC filing workflow is reasonably covered: company lookup, search, latest/recent filings, section extraction, 8-K events, comparisons, ownership filings, and XBRL financial checks are all present. However, there is no full-filing retrieval endpoint, no deep company financial history beyond a single concept, and many non-SEC subdomains are only one-off data points, so the overall surface is still incomplete.