finnhub_stock_ownership

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

There are no annotations, so the description must stand alone. It reveals the dispatcher-like behavior by listing four operation modes, but doesn't disclose read-only status, rate limits, or any data caveats; the 'Get' verbs imply reads but are not explicit about behavioral 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 compact and front-loaded, with a one-line domain summary followed by a clear operation list. Every bullet adds distinct, useful information without redundancy.

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?

Although an output schema is present, the description is missing critical invocation details for a multi-operation tool: which parameters are required per operation and what `project` means. This makes correct usage under-specified despite the clear operation list.

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 input schema has no property descriptions, and the description only hints at `cik` for get_institutional_portfolio. It does supply operation values, which is important, but leaves `symbol`, `project`, and operation-to-parameter mapping unexplained.

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 name and intro clearly scope the tool to insider trades, institutional ownership, and congressional trading. The bulleted operations provide specific verbs and resources, and this data domain distinguishes it from sibling Finnhub tools.

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 explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool over finnhub_sec_filings or finnhub_stock_fundamentals, nor on how to choose between the four operations. The domain description implies usage, but lacks exclusions or alternatives.

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