get_fund_asset_class_holdings

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits beyond the basic action. It does not mention whether the operation is read-only, requires authentication, has rate limits, or any side effects. The return type is hinted at (FundAssetClassHolding | None) but without detail.

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: two sentences plus a structured docstring. The primary action is stated first, and the Args/Returns format is clear. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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?

The description covers the basic purpose and parameter but lacks context on the nature of asset class holdings, data freshness, or how the result relates to other fund data. However, the presence of an output schema (not shown) partially compensates, as the structure can be inferred from it.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds meaningful explanation for the single parameter 'ticker' as 'The symbol of the fund.' This provides clarity beyond the schema's bare type definition. The phrase 'of the fund' clarifies the context, though 'ticker' is commonly understood.

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 tool retrieves asset class holdings for a specific fund, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_fund_bond_holdings or get_fund_equity_holdings, though it does not clarify what 'asset class holdings' entails (e.g., types of assets).

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies it should be used when asset class breakdown is needed, but no exclusions or when-not conditions are provided. Among many similar fund tools, this lack of guidance reduces usability.

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