get_shareholdingFetch quarterly promoter and public shareholding data from NSE filings for a stock symbol, with promoter stake QoQ and YoY changes.
Promoter and public shareholding by quarter from NSE filings, with the promoter stake's quarter-on-quarter and year-on-year change.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| symbol | Yes | NSE symbol, e.g. RELIANCE, TCS, HDFCBANK, M&M. | |
| quarters | No | Quarters of history. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and openWorld behavior, so safety is covered. The description adds meaningful context beyond them: the data source is NSE filings, the cadence is quarterly, and the response includes computed QoQ and YoY promoter stake change. It says nothing about failure modes for invalid symbols or history availability 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?
A single dense sentence with no filler and the resource named up front. The embedded clause about QoQ/YoY change is informative rather than redundant, though the sentence is long enough that it could be split for faster scanning.
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 no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing returns, and it does so reasonably: promoter/public split per quarter plus QoQ and YoY change. For a simple two-parameter read tool with safety annotations, this is nearly sufficient, with only error behavior and history availability left unspecified.
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 100%, so both parameters (symbol, quarters) are already documented in the schema, including the default of 8 and max of 20. The description's 'by quarter' phrasing aligns with the quarters parameter but adds no format or constraint detail beyond the schema.
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?
States a specific resource (promoter and public shareholding), its granularity (by quarter), and its source (NSE filings), including derived QoQ/YoY promoter stake change. This clearly separates it from siblings like get_financials or get_quote, though it never names those alternatives explicitly.
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 when-to-use guidance, no statement of preconditions, and no routing to related tools. An agent must infer the usage context entirely from the data content.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.