get_holding_changes

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 discloses the two usage modes and ticker format details (CIK, historical ticker), which is useful. However, it does not explain behavior around the 'limit', 'quarter', or 'change' parameters, nor what happens when both or neither of the key parameters are provided. Adds some value but is not comprehensive.

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 concise, with two sentences plus a focused note on ticker formats. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and provides the most critical usage detail without unnecessary filler. Slightly unstructured due to the inline 'Args' listing, but still efficient.

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 tool with 5 parameters and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It omits semantics for 'change' and 'quarter', which are essential for using the tool correctly. The output schema exists but does not offset the missing parameter guidance. It is adequate only for basic ticker/fund_name queries.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. Only 'ticker' is explained in detail (with formats), and 'fund_name' is briefly described. The 'limit', 'change', and 'quarter' parameters are completely unexplored, leaving significant ambiguity for 3 of 5 parameters. This is a major gap.

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's function: getting quarter-over-quarter changes in institutional holdings. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_fund_holdings or get_institutional_holders by focusing on changes (buying/selling) and explicitly explaining the two query modes (ticker vs fund_name).

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 gives concrete usage direction: use 'ticker' to see which funds are buying/selling a company, or 'fund_name' to see what a fund is buying/selling, and explicitly requires providing exactly one of these. It does not mention alternative tools or exclusions, but the primary use cases are clear.

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