Which US stocks the tracked superinvestor funds added or opened last quarter, alongside how many trimmed or exited. Source: SEC form 13F, which reports LONG US equity positions as of a quarter end and is filed up to 45 days after it — these are historical positions, not current trades, and short positions, bonds and non-US holdings never appear in them.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotation only provides readOnlyHint=true; the description adds meaningful behavioral caveats: data is as of a quarter-end, filed up to 45 days later, long-only US equities, and never contains shorts, bonds, or non-US holdings. This is valuable transparency beyond the annotation and contradicts nothing.
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 sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, and each clause adds essential information about scope, source, timeliness, and exclusions. There is no fluff or repetition.
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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it explains what the result contains, what data source it is based on, the reporting lag, and the major coverage gaps. Sufficient for selecting and invoking the tool correctly.
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?
The tool has no parameters and the schema is empty, so the baseline is 4. The description compensates by explaining what data is returned and the coverage limitations, even though there are no parameter-level details needed.
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 the tool reports which US stocks tracked superinvestor funds added or opened, plus how many were trimmed or exited. The SEC 13F source and limitation to long US equities help distinguish it from sibling insider/congress/buyback tools.
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 gives clear context and useful exclusion guidance: these are historical positions, not current trades, and shorts, bonds, and non-US holdings never appear. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the when-not-to-use conditions are strong enough to guide selection.
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 data source or analytical angle: buybacks, congress trades, DCA fit, insider buying, 13F filings, price levels, risk phrases, and options volume. There is no overlap in purpose or output, so an agent can unambiguously select the right tool.
All tool names follow a consistent lowercase_with_underscore noun-phrase pattern (e.g., buyback_leaders, risk_filings). The naming is uniform and descriptive, making it easy to predict what each tool does based on the name alone.
The server has 8 tools, squarely in the well-scoped range. Each tool represents a meaningful, non-redundant screen or data source, and none feels like filler or duplicative functionality.
For a market-aware server, the coverage is strong: it spans corporate actions (buybacks), insider activity, institutional holdings, technical levels, risk signals, and options flow. Minor gaps exist—no general price/quote tool or earnings-focused screen—but the set is coherent and covers diverse data sources without major dead ends.