fund_track_record

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

The annotations provide the read-only and idempotent safety profile, while the description adds important behavioral nuance: measurements are anchored to the 13F public date, sales are evaluated in the inverted sense, and windows with zero resolved data are explicitly called out. This goes well beyond what annotations alone convey.

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 well-organized: purpose, definitions/caveats, then parameters. Each section adds value, but the text is somewhat dense and the stray 'n' reference could be simplified or aligned with the actual parameter name.

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 read-only annotations and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential conceptual model, parameter sourcing, and edge-case behavior. Small gaps—no explicit alternative routing and the ambiguous 'n' reference—keep it from being fully 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden for parameter meaning. It explains holder_id's provenance and gives recent_changes a range and default. The cryptic 'Windows with n 0' phrasing is ambiguous and weakens an otherwise solid parameter explanation.

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 identifies the resource ('one institutional investor's 13F position changes') and the benchmark ('vs SPY'), and it explains buys/sales semantics. It lacks an explicit performative verb like 'returns' or 'computes' and does not directly distinguish itself from sibling track-record tools, so it falls just short of a 5.

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 first sentence establishes a clear use case, and the Args section tells the agent where to obtain holder_id ('From fund_leaderboard or search'). It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or point to alternatives, but the context is clear enough to guide selection.

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