insider_trading

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

Without annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the return fields (insider name, role, transaction type, shares, value, date) and source (SEC Form 4), but does not cover authorization needs, rate limits, data freshness, or error handling. The read-only nature is implicit but not stated, leaving moderate gaps.

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 at three sentences, with the core action in the first sentence. Every sentence adds value: purpose, return fields, usage signals, and pairing suggestions. No redundant or unnecessary text.

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 the simple one-parameter tool and presence of an output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It explains what data is returned, gives interpretative signals, and suggests complementary tools. The output schema handles the details of the return structure.

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 only parameter 'ticker' has 0% schema description coverage. The description adds critical meaning by specifying 'US stock ticker', clarifying the input type and geographic scope. This goes beyond the raw schema, but does not detail format (e.g., case, exchange suffix).

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 'SEC Form 4 insider trading activity for any US stock ticker', with a specific verb ('returns list of trades') and resource ('insider trading activity'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like equity_analysis and news_sentiment by focusing exclusively on insider transactions.

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 provides usage context by noting that insider buying clusters are bullish and selling before earnings is a red flag, implying when the tool is valuable. It also suggests pairing with equity_analysis() and news_sentiment(), offering integration guidance. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare against alternatives.

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