TickerInside ETF Holdings

Companies inside a portfolio

get_etf_portfolio_lookthrough

Read-onlyIdempotent

Use this when the user gives a portfolio of US ETFs and asks which companies they own, how much of one company they hold, or how concentrated it is. Returns the companies underneath, each with its percent of what is looked through, its value when amounts are given and the ETFs it comes through, plus the count of holdings, by ticker, and the top 10 weight; for one company, raise top until it shows, up to 200. It measures diversification by single companies, not by how ETFs move together. Without amounts, every ETF counts equally. Uncovered tickers (US stocks among them), bond, commodity, multi-asset, sponsor-file and prospectus-only ETFs, and ETFs read from SEC filings that are leveraged, inverse, under half in stock or half in swaps and futures are named and left out of the percentages and the value. Amounts are not stored. Not for duplicate ETFs (get_etf_overlap_matrix) or risk (get_etf_portfolio_risk).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`top`	No	How many companies to return, largest first, from 1 to 200; 25 when left out.
`currency`	No	The currency of the amounts, for example USD or EUR. Echoed back with the values; nothing is converted. Left out, the amounts still weigh the ETFs and the currency reads unstated.
`positions`	Yes	The ETFs of the portfolio, 1 to 60, for example [{"ticker": "VOO", "amount": 40000}, {"ticker": "QQQ", "amount": 25000}] with "currency": "USD" beside it. Give an amount for every position or for none; with none, every ETF counts equally.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`funds`	No
`priced`	No
`source`	No
`covered`	No
`skipped`	No
`computed`	No
`currency`	No
`companies`	No	Largest first; value in the amounts' currency.
`not_covered`	No
`prices_as_of`	No
`holdings_as_of`	No
`holdings_source`	No
`portfolio_value`	No
`top_10_weight_pct`	No
`distinct_companies`	No
`looked_through_pct`	No
`not_looked_through`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedOct 12, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / currency / description

Previous value: -"The currency of the amounts, for example USD or EUR. Echoed back with the values; nothing is converted. Left out, the amounts still weigh the funds and the currency reads unstated."New value: +"The currency of the amounts, for example USD or EUR. Echoed back with the values; nothing is converted. Left out, the amounts still weigh the ETFs and the currency reads unstated."

changedInput schema / properties / positions / description

Previous value: -"The funds of the portfolio, 1 to 60, for example [{\"ticker\": \"VOO\", \"amount\": 40000}, {\"ticker\": \"QQQ\", \"amount\": 25000}] with \"currency\": \"USD\" beside it. Give an amount for every position or for none; with none, every fund counts equally."New value: +"The ETFs of the portfolio, 1 to 60, for example [{\"ticker\": \"VOO\", \"amount\": 40000}, {\"ticker\": \"QQQ\", \"amount\": 25000}] with \"currency\": \"USD\" beside it. Give an amount for every position or for none; with none, every ETF counts equally."

Changed2 schema fields changedOct 10, 2026

changedOutput schema / properties / companies / description

Previous value: -"Largest first, value in the currency of the amounts."New value: +"Largest first; value in the amounts' currency."

addedOutput schema / properties / looked_through_pct

Added value: +{
+  "type": [
+    "number",
+    "null"
+  ]
+}

AddedOct 8, 2026

TDQS

A4.8/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only cover the read-only/idempotent/no-world safety profile, and the description adds substantial behavior beyond that: uncovered tickers and specific excluded ETF categories are named and dropped from the math, amounts are not stored, equal weighting without amounts, and the top-raising behavior for surfacing a single company. This is genuinely informative context the annotations do not convey.

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 when-to-use sentence, and every subsequent sentence carries a distinct fact (exclusions, weighting, non-storage, alternatives). It is dense and occasionally run-on ('for one company, raise top until it shows, up to 200'), which costs it the top mark, but there is essentially no filler.

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 return values need not be explained, and the description still covers the exclusion policy, weighting rules, top limits, and storage behavior. For a 3-param look-through tool this leaves no significant gap an agent needs.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning above the schema: 'for one company, raise top until it shows, up to 200' guides how to use top, and 'Without amounts, every ETF counts equally' clarifies the amount semantics across positions. It reinforces rather than merely restates.

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?

Specific verb+resource: tells the agent it returns the individual companies underneath a portfolio of US ETFs, with weight/value/ETF provenance. It explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings by naming get_etf_overlap_matrix (duplicates) and get_etf_portfolio_risk (risk) as not-this. An agent can route correctly without opening the schema.

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 when-to-use condition (user gives a portfolio of US ETFs and asks which companies they own, how much of one company, or concentration) and closes with explicit when-not-to-use plus the alternative siblings. Nothing is left to inference.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All TickerInside ETF Holdings tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?