investments_holdings

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the aggregation behavior and 'by default' but does not disclose the effect of the 'by_symbol' parameter, whether the output is a list or summary, or any other side effects. This is minimal and does not bridge the gap left by missing 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 a single, concise sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose and aggregation. However, its brevity sacrifices necessary detail, but for conciseness alone it is effective and well-structured.

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 there is no output schema, no annotations, and a single parameter with no description, the tool description is insufficient for an agent to fully understand what to expect or how to use the parameter. It does not describe the return format (e.g., array of objects, fields), the effect of 'by_symbol', or differentiate clearly from sibling tools. This is a significant completeness gap.

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 sole parameter 'by_symbol' is a boolean with no schema description (0% coverage). The tool description does not explain what this parameter does or how it modifies the output. It only mentions 'by default', which is vague and does not clarify the parameter's role. Since schema coverage is zero and the description adds nothing, this is a critical gap.

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 indicates it provides current holdings, aggregated by ticker across accounts by default. It distinguishes from balances (account-level) and transactions (activity) implicitly, but does not explicitly name alternatives or contrast with sibling tools like investments_balances. The verb 'holdings' plus aggregation context is specific enough.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The phrase 'by default' hints at behavior but does not explain when to choose this over investments_balances or investments_summary. No exclusions or conditions are given, leaving the agent to infer usage from the description alone.

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