Retrieve delivery holdings from your broker account. Get a list of current holdings for portfolio analysis.
Delivery holdings from the broker.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "fetch_broker_holdings"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions 'delivery holdings' without explaining side effects, required permissions, or what the tool actually returns. This is insufficient for safe and correct invocation.
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 very short (4 words), but it is a sentence fragment and lacks clarity. While conciseness is valued, the information is incomplete and could be misinterpreted. It earns its place but does not effectively communicate the tool's function.
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 tool's complexity (no parameters, no output schema), the description should at least clarify what 'delivery holdings' means and what the expected output is. The vague description leaves significant gaps, making the tool incomplete for effective use.
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 tool has no parameters, and the input schema is empty with 100% coverage trivially. The description adds little meaning beyond the schema; 'Delivery holdings' is unclear and does not enhance understanding of the tool's purpose. Baseline is 3 due to high schema coverage, but the description is not helpful.
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 'Delivery holdings from the broker' is vague and does not clearly state what action the tool performs. The term 'Delivery holdings' is ambiguous and not a standard verb-resource combination. It fails to distinguish this tool from the sibling 'fetch_broker_positions', which likely overlaps in functionality.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Given the many sibling tools related to broker data, the lack of usage context makes it difficult for an agent to select the correct tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.