Skip to main content
Glama

TickerInside ETF Holdings

ETF ownership of a stock

get_etf_ownership
Read-onlyIdempotent

Use this when the user asks how much of a US company ETFs own, or what share of its stock sits in ETFs. Returns a lower bound: at least this percent of the shares outstanding is held by the covered US ETFs, from this many ETFs, with the shares held, the SEC's count of shares outstanding and its date, the holdings dates, the method, whether the percent is of the whole company or of the ticker's class, and where the figure ranks among the stocks measured. It is a lower bound because ETFs outside the coverage are not counted. A stock without a figure comes back with the reason. Not for the list of ETFs that hold the stock (find_etfs_holding_stock).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
tickerYesA US stock ticker, for example NVDA or BRK.B. BRK-B and BRK/B are read as BRK.B.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameNo
basisNocompany when every class is counted, class when the ticker's class alone is.
figureYes
marketNo
sourceNo
tickerYes
coveredNo
holdings_as_ofNo
shares_outstandingNo
shares_outstanding_as_ofNo
etf_ownership_pct_at_leastNoThe percent of the shares outstanding held by the covered US ETFs, at least.
shares_held_by_covered_etfsNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the description clears the lower bar. It goes well beyond by disclosing the key semantic caveat that the result is a lower bound and why (ETFs outside the coverage are not counted), and by stating the failure behavior ('A stock without a figure comes back with the reason').

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with the usage trigger, and the caveat plus exclusion are placed well. However, the run-on enumeration of return fields ('the shares held, the SEC's count of shares outstanding and its date, the holdings dates, the method...') largely duplicates the output schema and is the least economical part of the text.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so the description need not explain return values, yet it still supplies the crucial interpretation aid (lower bound, ranking basis, class-vs-company scope) and the missing-data case. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is absent.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% and the single ticker parameter is fully documented in the schema, including the BRK.B normalization rule. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('how much of a US company ETFs own') and immediately scopes it to US companies, which an agent can act on without opening the schema. It also explicitly names the sibling it is not (find_etfs_holding_stock), so routing is unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Opens with an explicit trigger ('Use this when the user asks how much of a US company ETFs own, or what share of its stock sits in ETFs') and closes with an explicit exclusion plus the alternative to use instead ('Not for the list of ETFs that hold the stock (find_etfs_holding_stock)'). Both when-to-use and when-not are covered.

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.

Resources