get_holding_changes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description should disclose behavioral traits. It indicates a read operation (holding changes) but fails to mention any potential side effects, rate limits, data freshness, or required permissions. Minimal transparency.

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 short but includes redundant Chinese translation and a fragmented structure. It could be more concise and organized, e.g., grouping parameter explanations. It earns its place but lacks polish.

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?

With 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not describe the return format, pagination, error handling, or typical use context. The agent would struggle to use this tool correctly without additional context.

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 description coverage is 0%. The description only explains filter_type with a mapping. The required parameter 'code' and optional 'num' are not explained at all, leaving ambiguity about their meaning (e.g., stock code format, count limits).

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 it retrieves shareholder holding changes and lists four types (increase, decrease, new, clear), including Chinese translations. It distinguishes from siblings like get_institutional_holdings by focusing on shareholder-level changes.

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 filter_type options but does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_holder_detail or get_institutional_holdings. No guidance on prerequisites, use cases, or when not to use.

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