get_holders_general

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that ETF/mutual fund data will be null, and enumerates the returned metrics (ownership percentages, number of institutions, insider transaction flows). For a read-only snapshot tool, this is adequate transparency, though it doesn't mention output format or error behavior.

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-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence earns its place. The first sentence states the action and scope; the second clarifies applicability and edge-case behavior. No redundant or vague language.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter) and absence of an output schema, the description provides a solid overview of what is returned and when it is applicable. It lacks explicit return format and error handling, but for a high-level snapshot tool, the description is complete enough to guide correct use without overcomplicating.

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 already fully describes the single 'symbol' parameter, so baseline is 3. The description adds semantic value by explaining that the parameter's usefulness depends on asset type (stocks vs. funds), which helps the agent understand when the tool should be invoked.

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 a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('high-level ownership snapshot'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on aggregated institutional and insider holdings rather than detailed breakdowns. It also specifies the asset types it applies to, which further clarifies its unique purpose.

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 provides clear usage context by stating the endpoint is 'primarily relevant for stocks' and explicitly notes that ETFs and mutual funds will return nulls. While it doesn't name alternative tools directly, the sibling list (e.g., get_holders_institutional) implies when more detailed data is needed, and the description's scope guidance effectively steers users.

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