get_etf_holdings

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states the action ('Get') without disclosing behavioral traits like whether it's a read-only operation, requires authentication, has rate limits, returns structured data, or handles errors. This leaves critical operational context unspecified.

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 a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse, though it could benefit from slightly more detail to improve clarity without sacrificing brevity.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a simple input schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., list of holdings, percentages), potential errors, or usage context, making it inadequate for an agent to confidently invoke the tool without trial and error.

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 100% with one parameter ('ticker') fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as format examples (e.g., 'SPY') or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema adequately covers 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?

The description 'Get ETF holdings information' clearly states the action (get) and resource (ETF holdings), but it's vague about what specific holdings information is provided. It distinguishes from some siblings like 'get_etf_info' or 'get_etf_weights' by focusing on holdings, but doesn't explicitly differentiate scope or detail level.

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. With siblings like 'get_etf_info' and 'get_etf_weights', the description doesn't indicate if this is for detailed holdings, summary data, or specific use cases, leaving the agent to guess based on tool names alone.

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