sec_insider

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

The description discloses that the tool is read-only ('Returns...'), uses public SEC data, and specifies the returned fields (owner, role, security, shares, price). No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden; it is adequate but could mention non-modification more explicitly.

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 three sentences and front-loads key information. It is efficient but the first sentence is a fragment ('Insider transactions (Forms 3/4/5).') which could be integrated. Overall, it is clear and compact.

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 description covers the data source, what is returned, input alternatives, and access method (credential-free). Given no output schema and simple parameters, this is sufficient for the tool's 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and each parameter has a description. The description adds that 'cik' and 'ticker' are alternatives, which is already implied in the schema. No additional meaning beyond the schema is provided.

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 insider transactions from Forms 3/4/5 filings, specifying the verb 'returns' and the resource 'company's recent insider transactions'. It distinguishes itself from sibling SEC tools by focusing specifically on insider ownership filings.

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 mentions providing 'cik or ticker' and states 'Credential-free public SEC data', giving some context for use. However, it does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives like sec_filing or sec_company_submissions.

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