etf_holdings_all

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 indicates this is a read operation ('Get') but does not describe output structure, pagination, historical vs. snapshot data, or any limitations. The phrase 'all holdals' suggests completeness but lacks detail on how the data is returned or any 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 a single, concise sentence that clearly states the action and key outputs. It avoids unnecessary fluff and delivers the core purpose efficiently. While it could front-load the differentiation from siblings, it remains compact and readable.

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 tool's low complexity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides the minimum necessary to understand its function. However, it does not clarify how it differs from similar tools (e.g., etf_holdings, etf_weights) or what 'all' entails (e.g., all current holdings vs. historical). This moderate gap makes it functional but not fully complete for confident selection.

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 100% with the only parameter 'ticker' described as 'ETF ticker (e.g., SPY)'. The description adds no additional parameter context; it merely mentions 'ETF holdings' without elaboration on the ticker's role. Since the schema already documents the parameter well, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and identifies the resource ('ETF holdings') with key attributes ('weights' and 'last updated date'). It clearly states the primary purpose, but does not differentiate from sibling tools like etf_holdings or etf_weights, which could be confusing for an agent deciding which tool to use.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as etf_holdings, etf_weights, or etf_exposure. The description does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or the distinction between 'all holdings' and more specific variants, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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