Skip to main content
Glama

equibles

by io.github.daniel3303

Funds Holding a Stock

GetFundsHoldingStock
Read-only

Get the registered investment companies (mutual funds and ETFs) holding a given stock, from SEC Form NPORT-P portfolio reports. The stock's CUSIP is matched against the holding rows on each fund series' most recent report (series that stopped filing more than 18 months ago are excluded), so an exited position never shows as current. Returns the fund's registrant and series, the reporting period, the position size, its U.S.-dollar value, its share of the fund's net assets and the payoff profile (Long/Short), largest positions first. Report dates differ per fund series (each files on its own fiscal quarter), so values are as of each row's report date and cross-row totals mix as-of dates. Use this to see which funds and ETFs own a stock and how concentrated each position is.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
tickerYesStock ticker symbol (e.g., AAPL, MSFT)
maxResultsNoMaximum number of fund positions to return, largest first (default: 20, clamped to 1-500)
registrantOrSeriesNoOptional registrant or series name filter (case-insensitive contains, e.g. 'Vanguard') — reaches positions beyond the largest 500

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description richly discloses behavioral traits beyond the readOnlyHint annotation: CUSIP matching against each fund series' most recent report, exclusion of series that stopped filing more than 18 months ago, no exited positions shown, and per-report as-of dates. It also enumerates return fields since no output schema exists.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is appropriately sized for a complex tool, with each sentence providing substantive value: source, matching logic, output fields, ordering, as-of-date caveat, and use case. There is no redundancy or vague language.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description fully enumerates the returned fields (registrant, series, period, position size, value, share of net assets, payoff profile), explains the as-of-date mixing nuance, and states the use case. This provides complete guidance for an agent to invoke and interpret results.

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% for all three parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal extra semantics—it reiterates ordering ('largest positions first') and the registrantOrSeries filter's purpose, but these are already well documented in the schema.

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?

The description states the tool's function with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('registered investment companies holding a given stock'), and identifies the data source (SEC Form NPORT-P). It clearly differentiates from the sibling GetFundHoldings by focusing on the inverse direction—funds holding a stock rather than a fund's holdings.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides a clear usage context: 'Use this to see which funds and ETFs own a stock and how concentrated each position is.' It does not explicitly mention alternative tools or exclusion criteria, but the directionality and purpose are unambiguous.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All equibles toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, with detailed descriptions that cross-reference related alternatives. A few near-duplicate names could cause misselection, notably SearchDocument versus SearchDocuments and GetCftcPositioning versus GetLatestCftcPositioning.

Naming Consistency5/5

Tool names consistently follow a VerbNoun camelCase pattern: Get for retrievals, Search for discovery, List/Read for document access, and Add/Close/Remove/Update/Watch/Create/Delete for portfolio mutations. Despite the large count, there is no mixing of naming conventions or unpredictable verb styles.

Tool Count1/5

108 tools is an extreme surface area, far beyond the 3-15 well-scoped range and well past the 25+ threshold. Even for a broad financial data platform, this creates a heavy selection burden and substantial context overhead for agents.

Completeness4/5

The server covers an unusually wide domain: prices, fundamentals, SEC filings, options, insider activity, 13F holdings, short interest, macro data, funds, IPOs, and full portfolio lifecycle management. Notable gaps remain, such as a basic company profile/ticker-resolution tool, dividend history, and analyst estimates, so it is not a perfect 5.

Resources