get_us_insider

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds that it returns Form 4 and a net buy summary but does not explain what '순매수' (net buy) means or how it is computed. It also does not describe the output format beyond that. Since annotations cover the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.

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 but poorly structured: it mixes Korean and English, includes an 'Args:' line that duplicates the schema, and uses a colon-heavy format. The main purpose is front-loaded, but the bilingual content and redundancy reduce clarity.

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?

With a single parameter and an output schema (indicated as present), the description covers the basics: what data is provided and example queries. However, it does not explain the 6-month summary calculation, any limitations (e.g., only US tickers), or how the output is structured beyond the schema. It is adequate but not complete.

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 description coverage is 0% (no description in the schema for ticker). The description only says 'ticker: US 티커', which adds minimal meaning beyond the schema's type and title. It does not specify formats, examples, or constraints. Given low coverage, the description should compensate more, but it does not.

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 states the tool provides US insider trading Form 4 data and a recent 6-month net buy summary. This is a specific resource and function, and it is distinct from sibling tools like get_us_filings or get_us_news. It does not explicitly compare to siblings but is clear enough.

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 gives example queries (e.g., 'AAPL insider trading', 'NVDA 내부자 매수') that imply when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or suggest alternative tools for other insider-related needs, such as filings detail. The guidance is implicit via examples.

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