Fund Holders

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, but the description adds no further behavioral details such as data freshness, pagination, or definition of 'holding'. With rich annotations, the description adds minimal value.

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?

Single sentence with clear verb-first structure. No extraneous words.

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 the simple nature (1 param, rich annotations, output schema exists), the description is largely complete. Could mention that it returns a list of fund/ETF identifiers, but not necessary with output schema.

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 only parameter (symbol) is fully described in the input schema with an example. The tool description adds no additional meaning, so baseline score applies.

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 that the tool retrieves funds and ETFs holding a given symbol. The verb 'Get' and specific resource 'funds and ETFs that hold a given symbol' make the purpose unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools like 'fund_positions'.

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 usage for finding holders of a symbol but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives like 'fund_positions' or provide context about limitations or prerequisites.

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