Compute the position delta between a 13F filer's two most recent filings. Returns new positions, increased stakes, reduced stakes, and full exits per CUSIP — the actionable signal WhaleWisdom Premium charges $999/yr for.
Args: filer_cik: Filer CIK (e.g. "0001067983" for Berkshire) or fund name days_back: Lookback window for filings comparison (default 90 — informational)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| days_back | No | ||
| filer_cik | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description confirms a read-only computation. It adds context about the return structure (per CUSIP) and mentions the days_back lookback parameter behavior.
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 two concise paragraphs, with the purpose and output in the first and parameter details in the second. No redundant or filler sentences.
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?
Despite having no output schema, the description fully explains the tool's output (delta types per CUSIP) and parameters. For a 2-parameter tool with clear purpose, it covers all necessary context.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining filer_cik (accepts CIK or name) and days_back (default 90, informational). This adds significant meaning beyond the raw schema types.
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 it computes the position delta between two most recent 13F filings, which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_form_13f_holdings, which likely returns raw holdings rather than delta.
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 explains the tool's output (new positions, increased stakes, etc.) and highlights its unique value as a premium signal. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives.
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.
Each tool targets a distinct regulatory filing or financial data type with clear, non-overlapping descriptions. Even similar concepts like 13F holdings vs. delta are well-differentiated.
Most tools follow a consistent 'get_<noun>' pattern, with a single exception 'detect_insider_cluster'. Overall naming is predictable and readable.
17 tools is slightly above the ideal 3-15 range but justified by the broad domain of regulatory filings and financial data. Each tool serves a clear purpose.
The server covers a comprehensive set of regulatory filings (13F, Form 4, 8K, etc.) and additional financial data (analyst targets, options, short interest). Minor gaps like Form 144 are acceptable given the scope.