get_holdings

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only restates that it gets holdings, without mentioning the default account fallback, optional symbol filtering, or side-effect-free nature. The schema covers the fallback, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond the verb 'Get'.

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 that is front-loaded with the action and resource. It is concise, with no unnecessary words and includes a helpful parenthetical translation.

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 read-only getter with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate. However, it doesn't mention the default account behavior or that the symbol filter is optional, though these are captured in the schema. Overall, the essential context is present.

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%, with both parameters documented, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter details beyond what the schema provides, but it doesn't need to.

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' with a clear resource 'holdings / owned stocks' and specifies scope 'for an account'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_trades or get_prices, and the Korean translation reinforces the meaning.

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 implies when to use it (to see current owned positions), but it does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives like get_trades for historical trades or get_buying_power for available funds. No exclusions or alternative tool mentions are provided.

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