get_institutional_holders

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It reveals the data source (13F filings) but does not describe the return format, pagination, limitations, or update frequency. For a read-only data tool, this is a minimal disclosure and leaves the user guessing about the output structure.

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 a single 8-word sentence that front-loads the action and object, with zero wasted words. It is perfectly concise and structured for quick comprehension.

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 read tool with two well-described parameters, the description is nearly complete. The schema's 'limit' parameter description ('Number of holders to return') implies the response contains a list of holders, but the description itself does not explicitly state the return structure. This is a minor gap for a tool of this simplicity.

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 description coverage is 100%, with both parameters (symbol and limit) having clear descriptions. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so it earns the baseline score for high schema coverage.

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's action ('Get'), the resource ('institutional ownership'), and a clarifying detail ('13F filings') for a stock. This unambiguously distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_insider_trading or get_analyst_ratings.

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 implies the tool should be used when institutional ownership data is needed, but it offers no explicit guidance on when to prefer it over alternatives or any exclusions. There is no mention of situations where 13F data might be unavailable or when another tool would be more appropriate.

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