get_holdings

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the operation is a read and that behavior differs by broker, which is useful context. It does not cover permissions, authentication requirements, rate limits, or other operational constraints.

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 short sentences with no wasted text. The core purpose is front-loaded, followed by the broker-specific distinction.

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 tool has an output schema, so return-value details are not needed in the description. The description covers the basic purpose and broker nuance, but for a tool with no annotations and an undocumented required parameter, it lacks enough guidance on when to use this versus get_positions and what broker_id should contain.

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 schema has one required parameter, broker_id, with 0% description coverage. The description mentions Alpaca and Kite, implying broker-specific behavior tied to broker_id, but it does not name the parameter, explain accepted values, or clarify how broker_id maps to those brokers.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Read holdings') and clarifies broker-specific semantics: Alpaca holdings alias positions, while Kite holdings are a separate view. This helps distinguish the tool from the sibling get_positions, though the distinction is indirect rather than an explicit 'use this instead of get_positions' statement.

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?

Usage is implied through the broker-specific note: Alpaca holdings alias positions and Kite holdings are separate. However, it does not explicitly say when to call get_holdings versus get_positions, nor does it state prerequisites or exclusions.

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