Get one institution's spot crypto-ETF holdings (Bitcoin ETF complex): its per-ETF positions in the latest filed quarter (shares, USD, QoQ change, action) plus its rank among all crypto-ETF holders. Use a CIK number (find it with get_crypto_holders or the search tool).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| institution | Yes | Institution CIK number (e.g. '1512857' for Brevan Howard) or name (e.g. 'BlackRock'). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns data from the 'latest filed quarter' and includes specific metrics. However, it does not mention any side effects, data freshness, caching behavior, or permissions. For a read-only tool, this is adequate but not exceptional.
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 concise sentences. The key purpose and output are front-loaded, and every sentence provides necessary information without redundancy.
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 explains what the tool returns (per-ETF positions with shares, USD, QoQ change, action, and rank) and includes the time frame ('latest filed quarter'). It also instructs on finding the input. For a tool with one parameter and no output schema, this is sufficient; however, missing output schema means the agent relies entirely on the description, which is clear but could mention potential limitations like data scope or update frequency.
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 schema has 100% coverage with a description of the 'institution' parameter (CIK or name). The tool description repeats the same information and adds only a suggestion to use get_crypto_holders to find the CIK. No additional semantic value is added beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 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 states the verb 'Get' and specifies the resource as 'one institution's spot crypto-ETF holdings (Bitcoin ETF complex)'. It lists the data returned (per-ETF positions, rank) and references the sibling 'get_crypto_holders' implicitly by mentioning CIK numbers. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from 'get_crypto_exposure' or state when to use this tool over alternatives.
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 guidance on how to obtain the required input ('Use a CIK number (find it with get_crypto_holders or the search tool)'), giving clear context for usage. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or list exclusions, but the context is sufficient for correct invocation.
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 resource and action, and descriptions explicitly disambiguate similar pairs (e.g., get_congress_member vs get_congress_trades, get_crypto_holder vs get_crypto_holders). No two tools appear to do the same thing.
The dominant pattern is get_<noun>, with list_<noun> for enumerations. Minor deviations exist: a bare 'search' tool and the 'sec_' prefix on SEC filing tools break the uniform verb_noun style, but the pattern remains predictable.
At 24 tools, this is on the heavier side, but the server spans multiple financial data domains (SEC filings, stocks, insider trading, crypto, rates, economics), so each tool has a clear purpose. It is just below the 'too many' threshold.
The tool surface is remarkably complete for financial data retrieval: SEC filing lifecycle is covered (list -> index -> document), institutional ownership is available from both stock and institution perspectives, and insider/congress/crypto/economic data are all present. No obvious gaps or dead ends.