finance.thirteen-f

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

No annotations exist, but the description fully discloses behavior: it returns parsed holdings sorted by descending value, converts market values from SEC's $000s convention to USD, and includes voting authority. There is no contradiction with annotations.

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 concise (three sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose and key details. Every sentence adds value 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?

For a tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description provides complete context: it explains the source (Form 13F-HR), return fields, sorting, value conversion, and example CIKs. No gaps are apparent.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for managerCik, formType, and limit. The description adds significant value by listing the returned fields and providing common CIK values, which enhances understanding beyond the schema alone.

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 that the tool parses institutional holdings from SEC Form 13F-HR for a specific manager identified by CIK, and lists the specific fields returned (nameOfIssuer, cusip, market value, etc.). This is enough to distinguish it from sibling tools like finance.sec-filings.

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 common CIK examples (Berkshire Hathaway, Renaissance, etc.) to guide usage, and mentions that the default form type is 13F-HR with alternatives for amendments. It does not explicitly state when not to use or contrast with siblings, but the specificity is adequate.

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