get_stock_ownershipGet which politicians currently hold a given stock, with position size and return data.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Number of results per page (1–50, default 25) | |
| cursor | No | Pagination cursor (offset) | |
| ticker | Yes | Stock ticker symbol (e.g. NVDA) | |
| sort_by | No | Field to sort by (default: position_size) | |
| sort_dir | No | Sort direction (default: desc) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond that by specifying 'currently hold' (a live snapshot, not historical trades) and by naming the returned fields, which matters since there is no output schema.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence that states the resource, the scoping condition ('currently hold'), and the payload. No filler, no redundancy with structured fields.
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 5-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the essential shape of the response. What is missing is routing context against the many sibling holdings tools, which would be the highest-value addition.
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 defaults, ranges and enums fully documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema — it does not explain sort semantics, pagination via cursor, or the 50-result cap.
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?
States a specific verb and resource: which politicians currently hold a given stock, plus the data returned (position size, return). This clearly distinguishes the stock-centric view from sibling politician-centric tools like get_politician_portfolio_holdings, though it never names that inverse explicitly.
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?
Usage is only implied — an agent can infer this is the lookup to use when starting from a ticker rather than a politician. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no sibling is named as an alternative, despite a dense field of overlapping holdings/performance tools.
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.