getFundHoldings

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds 'Access real-time data', which provides additional context about data freshness. No contradictions or omissions beyond annotations.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose and clearly worded. Every sentence provides value: first identifies the tool and API, second elaborates on real-time data and insights. No redundant or extraneous content.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must convey return structure. It mentions 'specific securities and their weights', which hints at array of holdings. However, it could be more explicit about fields like symbol, name, weight, shares. Still, for a simple list tool, it provides sufficient context.

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 input schema has 100% coverage for the single parameter 'symbol' with description 'Fund symbol'. The description does not add any further explanation, such as expected format or examples. Since schema coverage is high, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 retrieves a detailed breakdown of assets held within ETFs and mutual funds, specifying 'specific securities and their weights'. The verb 'get' and resource are clear. However, it does not differentiate from closely related sibling tools like getFundAssetExposure or getFundSectorWeighting, which could cause confusion.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not indicate that this tool is for individual holding details, while getFundSectorWeighting might be for sector-level breakdowns. The description lacks any when-to-use or when-not-to-use context.

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