13F institutional holdings for one ticker, itemized by holding institution (default limit 50). Call this when the user asks which institutions or funds own a stock or how concentrated institutional ownership is.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| ticker | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description mentions the default limit of 50 and that data is itemized by institution, which adds behavioral context. However, with no annotations or output schema, it doesn't disclose whether holdings are current/historical, the coverage of 13F filings, or any limitations. This gap justifies a 3.
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, with the first stating the tool's function and the second providing usage context. It is front-loaded and free of fluff, earning a 5.
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 tool is simple, but the large sibling toolset includes similar ownership-related tools like mutual_fund_ownership and intel_top_shareholders. The description provides a 'when to use' hint but does not differentiate from these siblings or describe the output structure. With no output schema, this is a noticeable gap, so a 3 is warranted.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain the parameters. It states 'for one ticker' and 'default limit 50,' which clarifies both ticker and limit semantics. This is adequate but not elaborate, so a 4 is appropriate.
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 as returning 13F institutional holdings for a single ticker, itemized by institution. It uses a noun phrase rather than a verb, but the meaning is unambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings by specifying '13F' and 'itemized by holding institution,' though it doesn't explicitly contrast with related tools like mutual fund ownership.
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?
It provides an explicit 'Call this when the user asks which institutions or funds own a stock or how concentrated institutional ownership is.' This is clear guidance on when to use it, but it does not mention alternatives or exclusions, earning a 4 rather than a 5.
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.
With 336 tools, there is substantial overlap. Over a dozen health/status tools share nearly identical 'is the system healthy?' descriptions (e.g., tengu_status, tengu_ready, tengu_ml_health, tengu_v3_system_health, tengu_v3_stream_status), and multiple single-ticker analysis (tengu_ml_predict, tengu_copilot_score_ticker, tengu_v3_intel_ml_prediction) and top-picks (tengu_copilot_top_picks, tengu_ml_top_picks, tengu_v3_trade_setups) tools have poorly defined boundaries. Agents would frequently misselect.
The server mixes no-version (tengu_crypto), v2 (tengu_v2_drift), v3 (tengu_v3_intel_*), and copilot (tengu_copilot_*) families, and within families there is inconsistent verb/noun ordering (tengu_v3_research_fetch_url vs tengu_v3_news_summary). While subfamilies like tengu_v3_private_markets_* are internally consistent, the overall naming pattern is chaotic and unpredictable.
336 tools is far beyond any reasonable tool set size, even for an all-in-one financial data platform. This extreme count creates choice paralysis, high latency in tool selection, and makes the server effectively unusable for autonomous agents. The calibration guideline marks 50+ as extreme; this is nearly 7x that threshold.
The platform covers a vast domain: equity and crypto prices, fundamentals, insider trading, options, news (including crypto and FX), private markets, streaming data, risk metrics, and execution planning. There are minor gaps (no direct multi-ticker comparison tool, no order placement), but the surface is remarkably comprehensive for an analysis-focused server.
