get_insider_data

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

No annotations exist to cover behavioral traits. The description does not mention authorization, rate limits, or what happens if no data is found. It lacks any behavioral context beyond the data type options.

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 bilingual label. It front-loads the purpose in English. The Chinese translation adds no value for an English-oriented AI but does not harm 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?

Given 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It omits details on num, holder_id, and return format, and does not clarify how results are structured or paginated.

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 has 4 parameters with 0% description coverage. The description explains data_type (holders/trades) and implies code is a US stock symbol, but num and holder_id are not described. This partially compensates but leaves significant gaps.

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 retrieves US insider holdings/trades (Form 4) and specifies US stocks only. It distinguishes from siblings like get_institutional_holdings by focusing on insiders and mentioning Form 4.

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 indicates US stocks only and defines data_type options, but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_holder_detail) or when it is not appropriate.

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