Detects large shareholders with notable position changes over the last five reported trading days across the market, helping users identify ownership shifts.
Large holders whose positions changed most over the last 5 reported days, market-wide (تغییرات سهامداران عمده).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by disclosing the 5-reported-day window, the market-wide scope, and that results are ranked by magnitude of position change. It does not say whether the result list is sorted, how many rows come back by default, or how the '5 reported days' window is anchored.
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?
One compact sentence with the scope and time window front-loaded and no filler. The parenthetical Persian term adds redundant length for non-Persian readers but does not obscure the meaning.
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 one-parameter read tool with full annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, scope, and window adequately. It still leaves the caller guessing about result ordering, result size vs the undocumented limit, and the shape of returned fields, which matters more because there is no 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 schema has 0% description coverage for the single parameter 'limit' (default 30, max 200) and the description never mentions it, so an agent gets no guidance on what limit caps. The phrase 'changed most' hints at ranking/truncation but does not explain the parameter.
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?
States a specific resource (large holders) and a specific behavior (positions that changed most) over a concrete window (last 5 reported days), scoped market-wide. This distinguishes it from the symbol-level siblings shareholders, shareholder_history, and shareholder_portfolio, though it never names them explicitly.
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?
Usage is implied by the scope: use it to see market-wide large-holder position changes for the recent 5-day window. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no mention of the sibling shareholder tools an agent might otherwise pick, so routing is left to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.