list_positioningHow large holders are positioned, newest first. Net figures can reflect hedges and cannot be read as a directional view on their own.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | How many records to return. | |
| since | No | ISO date; only records on or after it. | |
| cursor | No | next_cursor from a previous call. | |
| ticker | No | Restrict to one ticker, e.g. TSLA. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Given the readOnlyHint annotation, the safety profile is already known. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: results are sorted newest first, and net figures may include hedges, warning against misinterpreting them as directional views. This goes beyond the annotation without contradicting it.
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 a single, concise sentence that delivers the core purpose and a critical caveat. Every word earns its place, and it is front-loaded with the most essential information.
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?
The description covers the essential purpose and the key interpretation caveat. While there is no output schema and the return fields are not described, the schema already documents cursor pagination, and the title plus description provide a solid mental model for a list tool. Minor gaps remain regarding response structure, but the overall context is adequate.
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 input schema provides 100% coverage for all four parameters (limit, since, cursor, ticker) with clear descriptions. The tool description does not add any additional parameter-specific meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 identifies the tool's function: displaying how large holders are positioned, with a specific ordering ('newest first'). The title 'Institutional and derivative positioning' reinforces the resource type. It is easily distinguishable from sibling tools like list_insider_trades or list_congress_trades, which cover different actor types.
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 provides the context of what the tool shows and adds an important interpretive caveat about net figures, but it does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives or exclude any use cases. Usage is implied rather than explicitly guided.
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.
get_composite and get_consensus both return per-ticker consensus with dimension breakdowns, creating ambiguity; agents might call the wrong one. Other tools are clearly distinct, but this overlap requires extra care.
All tools follow a verb_noun pattern: get_ for single entities, list_ for collections, and rank/search/screen as action verbs. The pattern is consistent and predictable across the entire set.
15 tools is well-scoped for a market intelligence server, covering single-ticker queries, lists, discovery, and market-level signals without unnecessary bloat.
The surface covers core workflows: ticker resolution, consensus, evidence, trades, positioning, screening, and market signals. Minor gaps exist (e.g., historical consensus or direct ticker comparison), but they are not critical.