Get institutional holders

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

Annotations include readOnlyHint=true, which already indicates a safe read operation, lowering the bar for the description. The description adds the specific output fields and intent, but does not disclose any behavioral limitations such as the number of holders returned, ordering, or data freshness. It provides some value but not rich behavioral context.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action and output fields, with no unnecessary words. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

The description lists the key return fields (organization name, shares held, percent ownership) and the purpose, which is sufficient for a simple one-parameter read-only tool. It could be more complete by specifying the list size or sorting order, but the provided information covers the main use case.

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 one parameter (ticker) with 0% description coverage. The description references 'for a ticker', which aligns the parameter with the tool's purpose, but it does not add format, examples, or constraints beyond the parameter name itself. For a simple self-explanatory parameter, this meets the baseline but doesn't exceed it.

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 the tool returns 'Top institutional holders for a ticker' with specific fields (organization name, shares held, percent ownership), using a specific verb and resource that distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_institutional_ratings or get_insider_trades.

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 provides an explicit use case ('Use to gauge institutional concentration and who the big holders are.'), giving clear context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it stops short of a 5.

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