fund_holderFind funds and ETFs holding a specific security symbol. Input a stock ticker to identify which funds include it in their portfolio.
Get funds and ETFs that hold a given symbol.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| symbol | Yes | Security symbol, e.g. "700.HK" |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| fund_holders | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
v0.7.1Input schema / titleRemoved value: -"SymbolParam"v0.6.0Output schema / $defs / FundHolderItem / descriptionRemoved value: -"One holder in `fund_holder`'s `fund_holders`.\n\nSubset of documented fields; upstream may return more."Output schema / $defs / FundHolderItem / properties / change / descriptionRemoved value: -"Change in shares."Output schema / $defs / FundHolderItem / properties / fund_name / descriptionRemoved value: -"Fund name."Output schema / $defs / FundHolderItem / properties / fund_symbol / descriptionRemoved value: -"Fund symbol."Output schema / $defs / FundHolderItem / properties / ratio / descriptionRemoved value: -"Ownership ratio."Output schema / $defs / FundHolderItem / properties / reported_at / descriptionRemoved value: -"Report date."Output schema / $defs / FundHolderItem / properties / shares / descriptionRemoved value: -"Shares held."Output schema / $schemaRemoved value: -"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"Output schema / descriptionRemoved value: -"Returned by `fund_holder`. Wraps a `fund_holders` array.\n\nSubset of documented fields; upstream may return more."Output schema / properties / fund_holders / descriptionRemoved value: -"Funds / ETFs that hold the symbol."Output schema / titleRemoved value: -"FundHolderResponse"v0.5.6Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "$defs": {
+ "FundHolderItem": {
+ "description": "One holder in `fund_holder`'s `fund_holders`.\n\nSubset of documented fields; upstream may return more.",
+ "properties": {
+ "change": {
+ "description": "Change in shares.",
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "fund_name": {
+ "description": "Fund name.",
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "fund_symbol": {
+ "description": "Fund symbol.",
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "ratio": {
+ "description": "Ownership ratio.",
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "reported_at": {
+ "description": "Report date.",
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "shares": {
+ "description": "Shares held.",
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+ }
+ },
+ "$schema": "https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema",
+ "description": "Returned by `fund_holder`. Wraps a `fund_holders` array.\n\nSubset of documented fields; upstream may return more.",
+ "properties": {
+ "fund_holders": {
+ "description": "Funds / ETFs that hold the symbol.",
+ "items": {
+ "$ref": "#/$defs/FundHolderItem"
+ },
+ "type": [
+ "array",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ }
+ },
+ "title": "FundHolderResponse",
+ "type": "object"
+}v0.4.5v0.4.0v0.3.2v0.3.1v0.1.12Does 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.
We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.
curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/longbridge/longbridge-mcp'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server