get_insider_trades

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It openly discloses that Yahoo's data flattens transaction types, which can misrepresent compensation mechanics as sales, and specifies the source. This is meaningful context beyond a basic read operation, though it does not cover every possible behavioral nuance.

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 efficiently structured: a one-sentence summary followed by a detailed comparison with the alternative tool. Every sentence provides value, and the length is appropriate for the complexity without any redundant phrasing.

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?

The tool has a single parameter and an output schema, so the description does not need to enumerate return fields. It adds the essential context of data source, summarization level, and a key caveat about interpretation, making it complete for a tool of this complexity.

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 single parameter `symbol` is already fully described in the schema as a stock ticker, so the description adds no additional parameter meaning. The 100% schema coverage sets a baseline of 3, and while the description does not explicitly explain the required input, the schema is sufficient for invocation.

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 recent insider transactions from Yahoo as a quick summary view, which distinguishes it from the sibling tool `get_insider_activity`. The contrast with the more detailed SEC EDGAR-based tool makes the specific role of this tool evident.

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?

It explicitly advises using `get_insider_activity` when the data will be acted upon, detailing the deficiencies of Yahoo's flattened table. This provides strong when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance, making the intended use case very clear.

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