get_fund_holdings

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behaviors. It describes the output fields (names, codes, quantities, etc.) but does not mention whether the operation is read-only, any potential data size implications, or data source scope. The description is adequate but could be more informative.

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 very concise, consisting of two short sentences that convey the core purpose and output. Every word is meaningful, and it is front-loaded. No wasted content.

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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: it explains the full data return and lists the output fields. It lacks details on data source or update frequency but is otherwise complete for its complexity level.

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 describes the single parameter 'symbol' with a clear example. The tool description adds no further semantic value for the parameter beyond what the schema provides. With 100% schema coverage, baseline 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 clearly states the tool returns the full list of fund holdings for a stock, not limited to the top 10. It explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_top10_shareholders and get_top10_free_shareholders by highlighting 'unlimited to top 10'.

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 implicitly guides usage by stating it provides full holdings data, contrasting with top-10-only sibling tools. However, it lacks explicit conditions for when to use or not use this tool, and no prerequisites or alternatives are mentioned.

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