get_us_insider

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool returns Form 4 filings and a recent 6-month net purchase summary. While not exhaustive, this conveys the key behavioral trait for a simple single-parameter tool.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose. It uses a mix of languages which may slightly reduce clarity, but overall it is efficient and to the point.

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, output schema exists), the description covers the essential information: what data is returned (Form 4, net summary) and the parameter meaning. It is adequate for a focused tool.

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 schema has a 'ticker' parameter with no description. The tool description adds 'US 티커' (US ticker), providing semantics beyond the schema. For 0% schema coverage, this clarifies the parameter meaning sufficiently.

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 it retrieves US insider trading data, specifically Form 4 and a 6-month net purchase summary. Example queries like 'AAPL insider trading' illustrate usage. This distinguishes it from sibling tools, which focus on prices, financials, or other data.

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 example queries that imply appropriate usage scenarios. It does not explicitly state when not to use or offer alternatives, but given no sibling tool covers insider data, the context is clear.

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