get_holder_breakdown

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It does disclose the core behavioral output—aggregate percentages and float information—but it does not mention read-only status, output shape, data freshness, or ambiguity around what 'count' refers to. It is minimally transparent but not rich.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It states the main purpose first and then lists the specific data points, making efficient use of the available space.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description gives the essential return fields but leaves ambiguity around 'count' and lacks any usage context. It is adequate for basic invocation but not fully complete.

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 coverage is 100% with a clear description of the only parameter (symbol), so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no additional meaning about the parameter beyond what the schema already provides.

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 a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('ownership structure') and elaborates on exactly what is returned: insider %, institutional %, float % and count. This distinguishes it clearly from sibling tools like get_holders or get_fund_holders, which imply more detailed holder lists.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_holders, get_fund_holders, or get_insider_transactions. The description states what it does but gives no context-specific selection criteria, exclusions, or alternative routes.

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