get_etf_holdings

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

With no annotations, the description should disclose behavior like caching, rate limits, or read-only nature. It only states what is retrieved, not how it behaves (e.g., no mention of live vs delayed data, or that it supports caching via the use_cache parameter). Minimal behavioral context.

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?

Single sentence, 13 words, no fluff. Very concise, but it sacrifices detail. Could add a second sentence for usage guidance while remaining concise.

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?

Despite having an output schema (so return values need no explanation), the description lacks coverage of behavioral aspects (no annotations) and does not explain how parameters like limit, format, and output affect results. Incomplete for a 6-parameter tool.

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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no extra parameter meaning beyond the schema. Mentioning 'holdings, sector/country weights, and metadata' aligns with the include parameter options, but does not enrich semantics.

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 ETF/fund composition including holdings, sector/country weights, and metadata. This distinguishes it from siblings like fmp_profile (company profile) and get_sector_overview (sector-level data). However, it does not differentiate from fmp_fetch or fmp_search, which could also retrieve ETF data.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For instance, it does not explain when to prefer this over fmp_fetch or get_market_context. The description simply states the action without usage context.

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