13F Holder Flows

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses genuine behavioral traits: trades are priced at quarter-average prices, filers with no prior-quarter 13F contribute no flow, and buckets are regulatory records that never name individuals. The last point is an important privacy disclosure not present in any structured field. It stops short of describing pagination or response format.

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?

Three dense but front-loaded sentences: the purpose and output metrics come first, then the dimension list, then the pricing/prior-book caveat. Every sentence carries information; only minor tightening would help.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so by naming the specific metrics returned (net flow, net flow as % of prior book, net buyers vs sellers). It is complete enough to call the tool correctly, though it omits any indication of result size or ranking order.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema: it groups the dimension tokens as 'holder type, measured style, turnover, horizon, book size, client base, private funds or location' in plain language, notes that sector splitting is optional, and adds that ETFs are separated out ('with ETFs apart') — a sector-grouping detail absent from the schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource (market-wide 13F money flows for a closed quarter, broken down by kind of filer) and enumerates exactly what is produced (bought/sold, net flow, net flow as % of prior book, net buyers vs sellers). This clearly separates it from generic holder tools, though it does not explicitly name which sibling it supersedes. An agent can tell what it returns without opening the schema.

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 scope is implied ('closed quarter') and the bucket/sector options signal context, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no named alternative (e.g., GetMarketWide13FActivity or GetHolderMix). The agent must infer selection from the sibling list rather than the text.

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