get_mutual_fund_holdings

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It states 'retrieve', implying a read-only operation, but does not explicitly confirm no side effects, required permissions, rate limits, or data freshness. The vague return type 'Any' further reduces transparency.

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 very concise, immediately stating the purpose and listing the parameter. However, it could be structured more effectively (e.g., using bullet points for args and returns) and the opening line could be more informative. It is efficient but not optimally front-loaded.

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 simple one-parameter tool, the description is incomplete. It lacks explanation of the return structure (e.g., list of holdings, fields like weight, shares), does not mention any constraints (e.g., mutual fund specific, not for ETFs), and fails to guide the agent among many similar fund tools. The absence of an output schema makes the vague 'Any' return type insufficient.

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 description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema: 'ticker (str): The symbol of the security.' The schema only has a title 'Ticker'. With 0% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description barely meets it by providing a simple one-line description.

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 it retrieves mutual fund holdings for a given ticker, using the verb 'retrieve' and the resource 'mutual fund holdings'. However, it does not distinguish among many sibling tools that also retrieve fund data (e.g., get_full_holdings, get_fund_top_holdings), so it lacks 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many related sibling tools, explicit context about exclusivity (e.g., 'use for mutual fund holdings only, not institutional holdings') is missing. The description implies use for any ticker but does not exclude or compare.

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