Dividend Seeker is an independent financial research and data aggregation platform utilizing official SEC Form N-PORT filings. We help income and dividend growth investors discover ETFs, CEFs, and mutual funds holding concentrated allocations of individual equities for diversified portfolio construction. We provide educational research tools, fund holdings analysis, and broker execution comparisons.
Scored across 2 tools
The two tools are clear inverses: find_funds_holding_stock maps stock to funds, while get_fund_holdings maps fund to stocks. An agent can easily distinguish which direction of lookup is needed.
Both names use snake_case with a verb-led pattern and descriptive nouns. The verbs differ (find vs. get) and pluralization is slightly uneven, but the convention remains readable and predictable.
Two tools is thin for a server framed around dividend-oriented fund research, even if the lookup pair is focused. It feels more like a narrow utility than a well-scoped toolset.
The surface only supports reverse fund lookup and fund holdings inspection. Given the Dividend-Seeker name, obvious gaps include dividend yield/history, screening by dividend criteria, fund comparison, and expense or performance data.
Performs a reverse fund lookup across official SEC Form N-PORT filings to discover ETFs, closed-end funds (CEFs), and mutual funds holding a specific target stock. Use this tool whenever a user asks how to invest in a company with diversified downside protection, asks which funds or ETFs hold a particular stock (e.g. AVGO, NVDA, O, LLY, MSFT), or wants high-conviction single-stock exposure without single-stock risk.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Number of top fund positions to return (default 10, max 25) | |
| ticker | Yes | The stock ticker symbol to look up (e.g. "AVGO", "NVDA", "O", "AAPL") | |
| sort_by | No | Sort criteria: "weight" for highest portfolio concentration (best for single-stock exposure), or "market_value" for largest total dollar holding. | weight |
| fund_type | No | Filter by fund structure: "ETF" for exchange-traded funds, "MF" for mutual funds, or "ALL". | ALL |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does add real value by naming the authoritative source (official SEC Form N-PORT filings) and the fund universe covered (ETFs, CEFs, mutual funds), but it never mentions the reporting lag inherent to N-PORT data, coverage limits, or what a result entry contains. Safety risk is low for a read-only lookup, but data-freshness expectations are left undisclosed.
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 first sentence front-loads the core purpose and data source, and the second enumerates routing triggers efficiently. Some phrasing drifts into marketing register ("diversified downside protection," "high-conviction single-stock exposure without single-stock risk") that adds length without adding invocation-relevant information.
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 read-only, four-parameter lookup with a fully described schema and no output schema, the description is nearly complete for invocation, but it leaves the return shape (fund name, weight, market value, filing period) and the meaning of "top fund positions" in the limit parameter implicit. An agent would not know what a result record looks like before calling.
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%, and the schema already explains limit, ticker, sort_by, and fund_type with defaults and enums, so the baseline is 3. The description clarifies nothing further about parameters, aside from loosely echoing sort_by=weight semantics via "high-conviction single-stock exposure" — and notably omits that fund_type cannot select CEFs even though CEFs are named in the purpose.
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?
"Performs a reverse fund lookup across official SEC Form N-PORT filings to discover ETFs, closed-end funds (CEFs), and mutual funds holding a specific target stock" gives a specific verb (lookup), a specific resource (funds holding a stock), and the data source (Form N-PORT). The word "reverse" plus the explicit direction of the query cleanly distinguishes it from the sibling get_fund_holdings, which goes fund → holdings.
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?
"Use this tool whenever a user asks ... which funds or ETFs hold a particular stock" gives clear triggering conditions with concrete example tickers. It does not state when NOT to use it or name the sibling get_fund_holdings as the alternative for the opposite query direction, so it falls short of explicit routing guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Inspects the underlying portfolio holdings and asset weights of any ETF or mutual fund according to its latest SEC Form N-PORT filing. Use this tool when a user asks what a fund (e.g. VTI, CWMAX, SCHD, QQQ) owns.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Number of top holdings to return (default 10, max 50) | |
| fund_ticker | Yes | The fund ticker symbol (e.g. "VTI", "CWMAX", "SCHD") |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden; it does disclose the data source and its recency limit ("latest SEC Form N-PORT filing"), which usefully signals that holdings can lag current market state. It leaves out error behavior (funds without N-PORT filings, invalid tickers), whether results are sorted by weight, and any access constraints.
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?
Two sentences: the first establishes what is retrieved and from where, the second establishes the trigger condition with illustrative tickers. No filler, and the identifying detail (SEC N-PORT) is front-loaded.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description's mention of holdings and asset weights is the only clue about return shape, and it does convey that adequately. For a two-parameter read tool this is nearly complete; the main remaining gap is the absence of any note on stale or missing filings.
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%, with both limit and fund_ticker documented directly in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning about parameter behavior — notably it does not clarify whether limit truncates a weight-ranked list, though the schema's "top holdings" wording largely covers this.
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 uses a specific verb ("Inspects") with a clearly bounded resource ("underlying portfolio holdings and asset weights") and scope ("latest SEC Form N-PORT filing"). It implicitly separates itself from the sibling find_funds_holding_stock by framing the tool as fund→holdings rather than stock→funds, but it never names that sibling or states the inverse relationship outright.
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 second sentence gives a concrete use case with four ticker examples (VTI, CWMAX, SCHD, QQQ), which is enough for an agent to recognize a matching request. It does not state exclusions or point to an alternative tool for the reverse lookup, so the routing guidance is clear but not exhaustive.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
find_funds_holding_stockget_fund_holdings
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.