get_holders

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool is equity-only and returns empty for other asset types, which is a critical behavioral constraint. It also clarifies the output structure (high-level summary plus lists of holders). It does not mention rate limits, authentication requirements, or whether the data is cached, but for a read-only data retrieval tool, the provided information is sufficient.

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 concise at three sentences, with the most important information (what the tool does) front-loaded in the first sentence. Every sentence adds value: the second clarifies the output structure, and the third provides critical usage constraints. No wasted words.

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 has 2 parameters (both well-documented in schema), an output schema (so return structure is documented elsewhere), and no annotations, the description provides enough context for an agent to use the tool correctly. It covers purpose, inputs, and behavioral constraints. Minor gap: it doesn't mention that the symbol is required, but the schema already specifies that.

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 schema already provides 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds minimal extra value beyond clarifying that the 'limit' applies per list (institutional and mutual-fund holders) and that the 'symbol' can be a ticker or ISIN. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, a baseline 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 clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'ownership breakdown for a Yahoo symbol'. It also specifies the scope: high-level holder summary (insider/institutional percentages) plus top institutional and mutual-fund holders. It distinguishes itself from related tools like 'get_insider_activity' or 'get_shares' by focusing on ownership breakdown rather than raw insider transactions or share counts.

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 clear context for when to use this tool: for equity symbols only, and explicitly states that it returns empty for ETFs, funds, and crypto. It does not, however, explicitly mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives for non-equity instruments, leaving a minor gap.

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