holdings

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

With no annotations, the description still discloses a genuinely important behavioral trait the schema cannot convey: each call is paid in USDC on Base via x402. That is valuable cost/payment context. It stops well short of the full burden, though — no indication of what the response contains, whether both identifiers may be supplied, what happens if neither is provided (0 required parameters), or any refinement/pagination limits.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with the resource first and the cost note in parentheses. Nothing is padded and no sentence is wasted.

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 two-parameter, no-annotation, no-output-schema tool, the definition covers what the tool returns conceptually (13F holdings) and its payment model, which is more than the schema alone. It is still missing the calling contract — optionality of CIK vs name, response shape, and how it differs from the SEC-oriented siblings — so an agent could call it and be surprised.

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 0%, so the description must carry the semantics, and it does partially: it tells the agent the two paths are an institutional manager CIK or a manager name. It does not say whether they are mutually exclusive, which takes precedence, whether CIK must be zero-padded or 10 digits, or what occurs with neither field set. Useful but incomplete compensation for the coverage gap.

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 names a specific resource (institutional 13F holdings) with a clear qualification of the two lookup keys (CIK or manager name). An agent can tell this is the 13F-holdings endpoint, distinct from generic company or insider data. It does not, however, explicitly contrast itself with overlapping siblings like edgar_company or insiders.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus edgar_search, edgar_company, or insiders, and no exclusions or prerequisites. The only implicit routing clue is that it accepts a CIK or manager name, which is parameter guidance rather than usage guidance. The paid-per-call note hints that cost should factor into the decision but never says so.

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