soma_holdings

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'immutable cache identity' and weekly frequency, which adds behavioral context. However, it does not explicitly state read-only nature or other safety considerations.

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 tightly written sentences with no extraneous information. The first sentence states the primary action, and the second provides essential usage constraints.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description lacks parameter details and does not cover input validation, error cases, or the implications of 'refresh'. For a tool with no annotations and low schema coverage, this is insufficient.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description should explain all three parameters. It only references 'asof' indirectly and provides no detail on 'cusip' or 'refresh' semantics, leaving the agent to infer from names.

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 uses the specific verb 'Fetch' and clearly identifies the resource as 'CUSIP-level SOMA Treasury holdings' for a weekly as-of date. This distinctly differentiates it from sibling tools like 'provenance', 'source_caveats', or 'find_series'.

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?

Provides clear guidance on omitting the asof parameter for the latest snapshot and notes that snapshots are weekly starting July 2003. This helps with usage timing but does not explicitly state when not to use or offer alternatives.

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