Shareholder Detail

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

Annotations indicate a safe, read-only, idempotent tool. The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations by detailing the return structure and the condition where trading_details is empty for institutional holders. No contradictions with annotations.

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 concise, front-loaded with the main purpose, lists return fields efficiently, and includes a critical note. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 2-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains what is returned and includes a key behavioral caveat. However, it omits details on certain fields like holding_summary or holding_periods, which are self-explanatory but not defined.

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?

Input schema covers both parameters (symbol, object_id) with descriptions. The description adds minimal extra: it notes object_id comes from shareholder_top, which provides context but does not significantly enhance schema meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 it retrieves a single shareholder's holding and trade history, specifies it requires object_id from shareholder_top, and lists the returned fields. This differentiates it from sibling tools like shareholder_top (which returns a list) and shareholder.

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 explicitly requires an object_id from shareholder_top, providing a clear prerequisite. It also explains that trading_details is empty for institutional holders, guiding interpretation of results. However, it does not compare or contrast with alternative tools like shareholder or shareholder_top beyond the object_id requirement.

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