get_etf_holdings

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the data source (Yahoo Finance), the selection limit (top 10), and the output concept (portfolio weights), which conveys the read-only nature implicitly. It does not mention rate limits, error behavior, or freshness, but for a simple holdings lookup the core behavior is clear.

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?

Two short sentences: the first states the main function and scope, the second routes to the full-holdings sibling. No filler or 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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description explains what is returned (top holdings and weights) and how to get the more complete version. It is slightly light on return shape, but sufficient for correct invocation.

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 already documents the only parameter (symbol) with 100% coverage, including an example. The description adds no additional parameter-level details, so the baseline of 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 names the specific resource (top 10 ETF holdings), the data being returned (portfolio weights), and the source (Yahoo Finance), and explicitly contrasts with get_etf_full_holdings. An agent can immediately distinguish this tool from its siblings.

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?

It states what the tool covers ('top 10 holdings') and gives an explicit alternative with its differentiator ('for every holding, straight from the fund's SEC filing, use get_etf_full_holdings'). This tells the agent exactly when to choose this tool versus the sibling.

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