get_us_holders

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the high-level purpose and does not mention data frequency, limitations (e.g., only US, quarterly filings), or output structure. This is insufficient for an agent to understand side effects or constraints.

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 English and Korean translations which are somewhat redundant. It could be more concise by dropping the duplicate translation or combining sentences. The structure (header, examples, Args) is logical.

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?

Given the high number of sibling tools and absence of annotations, the description lacks completeness. It does not explain what the output contains, how to interpret 13F data, or any pagination or filtering details, making it harder for an agent to use correctly.

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?

The description for the 'ticker' parameter merely says 'US 티커' (US ticker), adding no additional meaning beyond the parameter name. With 0% schema coverage, more detail (e.g., format, examples) is needed.

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 returns US institutional holders via 13F holdings, with example queries showing its scope. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like get_us_filings or get_us_insider, though the focus on 'holders' is unique.

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?

Example queries provide usage context, but there are no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidelines. Alternatives from the sibling list are not mentioned, leaving the agent to infer.

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