get_fund_holders

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only says 'Get' with no mention of output format, pagination, ordering, data scope, or any side effects. For a retrieval tool, the absence of behavioral details is a notable gap.

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 sentence with no filler, so it is concise. However, it is under-specified and awkwardly phrased, with no additional context or structure to help disambiguation. It is minimal rather than genuinely well-structured.

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?

With two params, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is the sole source of guidance, yet it fails to explain return values, how the symbol is interpreted, what 'positions' includes, or how limit affects results. This is insufficient for confident invocation.

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?

Only symbol is described in the schema; limit has no description. The description adds no parameter-level meaning and does not compensate for the 50% schema coverage. It also does not clarify the meaning or effect of the limit parameter.

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 uses the verb 'Get' with a resource, but 'mutual fund / fund ownership positions' is ambiguous: it could mean a fund's holdings or its owners' positions. The statement does not clearly distinguish this tool from siblings such as get_holder_breakdown or get_quote.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No preconditions, exclusions, or selection criteria are mentioned. The intended usage is only implied by the tool name and minimal description.

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