get_top_foreign_holdings

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses failure modes such as non-trading days and temporary service issues, and describes the return envelope. It lacks details like data timing or refresh behavior, but for a read-only no-argument tool the disclosure is reasonably complete.

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 well-structured with a summary, usage example, Args, Returns, and Raises sections. There is minor redundancy between the opening sentence and the explanatory second sentence, but overall every major section 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?

For a no-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description fully covers the return fields, error cases, and invocation. An agent has everything it needs to call the tool and interpret the result.

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 zero parameters, so the input schema is trivially complete and the description's explicit '無參數' plus usage example adds no necessary semantics. The baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools 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 states a specific verb and resource: it retrieves the top 20 stocks by foreign shareholding percentage, and lists the main returned fields. This clearly distinguishes it from related siblings like get_foreign_investment_by_industry, which covers industry-level foreign investment.

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 a clear use case ('可瞭解外資重點布局標的') and a usage example, making the intended context evident. However, it does not explicitly contrast this tool with alternatives such as get_foreign_investment_by_industry, so some routing inferences are left to the agent.

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