get_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 adds useful context about pagination support for large datasets, which isn't in the schema, but lacks details on authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or response format. For a read operation with no annotations, this provides basic behavioral insight but misses important operational aspects.

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 extremely concise with just two sentences that are front-loaded and waste-free. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second adds critical behavioral context about pagination. Every word earns its place, making it efficient 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 the tool's moderate complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and pagination behavior but lacks details on authentication, error cases, response structure, or sibling tool differentiation. For a read operation with full schema coverage, it's complete enough to be functional but leaves gaps in operational context.

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%, so the schema fully documents all three parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, such as clarifying 'client_id' usage or pagination mechanics. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description doesn't compensate with additional semantic value.

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 resource 'holdings for the current user', making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_mf_holdings' by specifying it's for general holdings, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with other holding-related tools. The description is specific but lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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 implies usage for retrieving holdings with pagination support, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_mf_holdings' or 'get_positions'. It mentions pagination context but doesn't specify prerequisites, exclusions, or clear alternatives, leaving usage somewhat inferred rather than explicitly defined.

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