tickerbot_get_ticker_holdings

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

With no annotations provided, the description takes on the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses edge-case behavior: when ticker is not an ETF, `is_etf` is false and `holdings` is empty; `is_etf: true` with zero holdings indicates a real ETF whose data isn't ingested yet. This goes beyond what the schema specifies and helps the agent interpret unusual responses.

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 compact and efficient: a single main sentence followed by two clarifying notes. The core action is front-loaded, and every clause adds value—edge cases and exclusions are included without fluff. It is exemplary in conciseness.

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 two-parameter read tool, the description is fairly complete: it states the main output, ordering, edge cases, and a key exclusion. It lacks an explicit return-structure description, but the absence of an output schema means the description still conveys enough for the agent to use the tool correctly. A dedicated section on fields within each holding could nudge this to 5, but the current coverage is solid.

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 input schema provides complete descriptions for both parameters: ticker is an 'ETF symbol' and limit covers max, default, and truncation behavior. The description adds ordering context ('heaviest first') but does not add new parameter-level semantics beyond the schema. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline of 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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Get an ETF's constituent holdings and their weights, heaviest first.' This clearly states what the tool does and distinguishes it from siblings like get_ticker or get_ticker_sectors. The parenthetical further clarifies that this is not for reverse lookups, reinforcing its unique purpose.

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 explicitly states when NOT to use this tool: 'The reverse lookup "which ETFs hold NVDA" is a scan filter on the etf_holders column, not this tool.' This provides an exclusion and a pointer to an alternative. However, it doesn't discuss other contexts, such as when to use get_ticker instead of get_ticker_holdings, so it stops short of full guidance.

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