TickerInside ETF Holdings

Portfolio risk breakdown

get_etf_portfolio_risk

Read-onlyIdempotent

Use this when the user gives a portfolio of US ETFs and asks where its risk comes from or how its ETFs move together. Returns the portfolio's volatility, each position's share of the risk and of the capital, the diversification ratio, independent bets, the beta to the S&P 500, and the correlation and covariance of weekly returns over up to three years. It measures diversification by how the ETFs move together, not by companies held. Every ETF needs a year of weekly prices, which most ETFs read from SEC filings do not have here. Uncovered tickers are named and skipped. A trust or pool (bitcoin, gold), a bond, multi-asset or leveraged, inverse or other derivative-based ETF counts from its own weekly prices when it has them, named in read_from_prices. Past, not a forecast. Not for the companies held (get_etf_portfolio_lookthrough).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`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
`source`	No
`covered`	No
`skipped`	No
`computed`	No
`currency`	No
`positions`	No
`weeks_used`	No
`correlation`	No	Weekly returns; rows in the order of labels.
`not_covered`	No
`prices_as_of`	No
`holdings_as_of`	No
`volatility_pct`	No	Annualised.
`holdings_source`	No
`beta_vs_sp500_1y`	No
`beta_vs_sp500_3y`	No
`independent_bets`	No
`read_from_prices`	No
`diversification_ratio`	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."

Changed1 schema field changedOct 10, 2026

changedOutput schema / properties / correlation / description

Previous value: -"Of weekly returns, rows in the order of labels."New value: +"Weekly returns; rows in the order of labels."

Changed2 schema fields changedOct 9, 2026

removedOutput schema / properties / not_looked_through

Removed value: -{
-  "items": {
-    "properties": {
-      "ticker": {
-        "type": "string"
-      },
-      "why": {
-        "type": "string"
-      }
-    },
-    "required": [
-      "ticker",
-      "why"
-    ],
-    "type": "object"
-  },
-  "type": "array"
-}

addedOutput schema / properties / read_from_prices

Added value: +{
+  "items": {
+    "properties": {
+      "ticker": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "why": {
+        "type": "string"
+      }
+    },
+    "required": [
+      "ticker",
+      "why"
+    ],
+    "type": "object"
+  },
+  "type": "array"
+}

AddedOct 8, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already establish this is a safe, read-only, idempotent, closed-world call, and the description adds substantial context beyond them: the one-year weekly-price coverage requirement, that uncovered tickers are named and skipped, how trusts/bonds/leveraged/inverse ETFs are handled via read_from_prices, the up-to-three-year window, and that output is historical rather than a forecast.

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-loads the use case and then layers coverage constraints and exclusions, so every sentence carries information. It is dense and slightly long, but not padded or repetitive.

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?

With read-only annotations and an output schema present, the description only needs to cover scope, triggering conditions, coverage limits, and sibling routing – and it does all of those. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the currency echo behavior, the per-line amount weighting, and the all-or-none amount rule are already fully documented in the schema. The prose adds no format or syntax detail beyond that, so the baseline of 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 ('portfolio risk breakdown' returning volatility, risk share, diversification ratio, beta, correlations) for a clearly bounded input type (US ETFs). It distinguishes itself from siblings by naming get_etf_portfolio_lookthrough as the wrong tool for the related question.

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 trigger ('user gives a portfolio of US ETFs and asks where its risk comes from or how its ETFs move together') and closes with an explicit when-not / alternative ('Not for the companies held (get_etf_portfolio_lookthrough)'). 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?