get_institutional_holders

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

With no annotations, the description discloses that it returns top 20-100 largest holders and explains output fields. It mentions high institutional ownership as a signal, which adds context. It does not discuss rate limits or authorization, but for a read-only data tool, this is sufficient.

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 front-loaded with the action and includes examples, but it is slightly verbose with multiple clauses. It could be more concise, but the information is well-organized.

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?

Given no output schema, the description explains return fields (position sizes, shares, etc.). It provides use cases and examples. Missing details like error handling or pagination, but the tool is simple and the description covers core aspects.

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 already provides descriptions for ticker and top_n, including default and range. The description only adds that top_n returns 20-100 holders, which is already in the schema. It does not add new parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema offers.

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 it retrieves major institutional shareholders and mutual fund holders, including specific data fields like position sizes and share counts. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (e.g., get_insider_trades, get_price_history) by focusing on institutional ownership.

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 explicitly tells when to use this tool (e.g., 'when asked about institutional ownership') and provides example queries. It does not mention when not to use it or alternative tools, but the provided examples and context are adequate for guiding usage.

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