Retrieve an institutional manager's latest 13F-HR holdings by CIK, with issuer, value, and shares sorted by value for equity analysis.
Institutional holdings (13F-HR). Returns the latest 13F-HR holdings for an institutional manager (by CIK): issuer, value, shares, sorted by value.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cik | Yes | Institutional manager CIK | |
| limit | No | Max holdings, default 50, max 1000 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.5.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It adds that results are the *latest* filing and *sorted by value*, which is useful context, but says nothing about pagination, the limit cap behavior, or what happens when a CIK has no 13F filings. For a low-risk read tool this is adequate but not rich.
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?
Two sentences, zero waste, with the resource identity front-loaded ahead of the return-value and sort details.
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 two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields and sort order. It remains silent on pagination and empty-result behavior, but nothing critical for calling the tool correctly is missing.
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%, so both parameters are already documented (CIK description, limit default 50/max 1000). The description reinforces that cik identifies an institutional manager and that sorting is by value, but adds no format or syntax detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb and resource — returns the latest 13F-HR holdings for an institutional manager — and names the returned fields (issuer, value, shares) and sort order. The 13F-HR specificity sharply distinguishes it from siblings like sec_insider, sec_filing, and sec_financials.
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?
Usage is implied by the description (fetch institutional holdings for a manager identified by CIK), but there is no explicit when-to-use statement or named alternative. An agent must infer that this is the 13F holdings tool versus sec_company_submissions or sec_filing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.