get_holdings_general

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively discloses that the tool returns null for stocks and outlines the data categories included (asset allocation, sector exposure, aggregated valuation characteristics). This is useful context but does not discuss potential limits, data freshness, or error behavior, keeping it from a top score.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the core action and resource, followed by a behavioral caveat and concrete use case. Every sentence provides value, and there is no redundancy or extraneous detail.

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 single-parameter read tool without an output schema, the description is complete: it explains what data is returned (portfolio composition, asset allocation, sector exposure, valuation characteristics), the fund vs. stock distinction, and the intended application context. This adequately fulfills the tool's information needs.

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 describes the single parameter 'symbol' as 'Asset identifier (ticker symbol)', and the description adds meaningful context by specifying that the symbol should be for a fund and that stock symbols will yield null fields. This goes beyond the schema's generic labeling and clarifies expected input.

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 'Returns consolidated portfolio composition and holdings-level aggregates for a fund (ETF or mutual fund)', using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on aggregate-level holdings data rather than individual holdings or holders, and explicitly scopes to funds.

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 context on when to use the tool ('Use to populate Holdings Overview or Portfolio Composition sections') and includes an explicit when-not-to-use condition ('For stocks, all fields return null'). However, it does not name an alternative tool for stocks, so it falls short of the explicit alternative guidance required for a score of 5.

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