get_holders

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It details the return structure (major_holders, institutional_holders, etc.) and the data fields included, which is informative. However, it does not mention data freshness, sources, or any potential side effects, but for a read-only retrieval tool, the provided detail is adequate.

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 two sentences, front-loading the purpose in the first sentence and listing return fields in the second. No unnecessary words, making it highly concise and effective.

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?

For a single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the main output categories. It could mention limitations (e.g., market coverage) but is reasonably complete given the tool's simplicity.

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 only parameter is 'symbol', and the schema has 0% description coverage. The description does not explain that 'symbol' refers to a stock ticker (e.g., AAPL), leaving ambiguity. Given the low coverage, the description should compensate but fails to do so.

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 starts with 'Get ownership breakdown: major, institutional, mutual fund and insiders.' which clearly states the tool's purpose and distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_shares or get_ticker_info by specifying the exact type of ownership data returned.

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 obtaining ownership data, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives such as get_shares or get_sustainability. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving the context partially unclear.

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