get_holder_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the data source (Yahoo Finance) and the available holder types, but does not mention any behavioral traits such as potential errors, rate limits, data availability, or whether the operation is read-only. The absence of caveats is a minor gap for a simple data-fetching tool.

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 structured well with a leading purpose statement followed by an Args block. However, the full list of holder types is repeated twice (once in the opening sentence and once in the Args section), which is slightly redundant. Otherwise, it is concise and clear.

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?

The tool is a simple two-parameter data-fetcher, and an output schema exists to describe return values, so the description need not cover that. It effectively explains what data can be retrieved and the allowed parameters. It lacks any note about error conditions or prerequisites, but for this level of complexity the description is adequately 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?

The schema provides only bare string types with no descriptions (0% coverage), so the description's Args section compensates fully. It explains ticker with an example ("AAPL") and explicitly enumerates all valid values for holder_type, which the schema omits. This adds significant meaning 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?

The description clearly states the tool's function: "Get holder information for a given ticker symbol from yahoo finance," which specifies the verb (get), resource (holder information), and input (ticker). It also lists the specific holder types, distinguishing it from sibling tools that handle prices, news, financials, or options.

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 the tool (when you need holder information for a ticker) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. There is no guidance on when not to use it or how it compares to sibling tools, so usage context is only inferred.

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