get_holder_info

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

The description implies a read operation ('get'), but does not explicitly state it is safe or non-destructive. With no annotations provided, the description should disclose behavioral traits; it adds minimal value beyond stating the action. Given the nature of the tool, a score of 3 is acceptable.

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 starts with a clear sentence but then repeats the same information in an Args block, which is redundant given the input schema. Could be more concise by omitting the duplicate listing of holder types.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description does not explain the return format or structure. For a tool with two simple parameters, this is a notable gap. The agent cannot anticipate what data the tool will return.

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 0%, and the description compensates by listing the holder_type options and providing an example for ticker (e.g., 'AAPL'). This adds meaning beyond the schema's minimal titles.

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 tool retrieves holder information for a given ticker symbol from yahoo finance, and lists the specific holder types. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like get_stock_info, which may be ambiguous. The verb 'get' and resource 'holder information' are specific.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description provides parameter details but no context on prerequisites or use cases. Agent would need to infer based on the tool name and sibling names.

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