stock_insiders

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

Without annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the action and data type, but does not explain how recent 'recent' is, whether authentication is needed, rate limits, or data completeness. For a tool with no annotations, this is insufficient.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. It efficiently conveys the core purpose.

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 absence of an output schema means the description should describe return value structure or fields. It mentions 'insider transactions' but not typical fields like date, insider name, transaction type, or volume. It also lacks information on pagination or time range. For a tool with one parameter, completeness is poor.

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% with a single parameter described. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema's parameter description, which already explains both company name and ticker examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the description does not harm but does not significantly enhance understanding.

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 verb 'Get', the resource 'recent insider transactions (Form 4 filings)', and the scope 'for a US public company.' It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like stock_financials or stock_history by specifying the exact filing type.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, when to avoid it, or provide examples of use cases. Sibling tool names offer implicit context, but the description itself is silent on usage boundaries.

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