Insider cluster buys

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral-disclosure burden. It explains the uniform_price_cluster flag, the Form-4 code P ambiguity, the ranking of genuine clusters above uniform-price ones, default limit and pagination, total_matched, and filing_url. This is far more transparency than a typical 'returns cluster buys' statement.

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 dense and organized: scope, flag caveat, ranking, pagination, and source URL. No sentence is filler; the Form-4 note is essential to interpreting uniform_price_cluster correctly. It is somewhat long and packed into one paragraph, so it is not maximally concise.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, it tells the agent the key returned fields (uniform_price_cluster, total_matched, filing_url) and the exact collection semantics: newest 25 by default, limit/offset pagination, optional days/ticker filters, and ordering/ranking. Nothing critical is missing for a read-only filtered query 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds semantic guidance: 'set limit; page with offset; optional days/ticker; total_matched reports the full count' and reiterates default 25 newest-first. This is a modest but real addition over the input schema.

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?

Opens with 'Rule-2 cluster buys only (>=2 insiders buying the same issuer in-window)' and later 'Returns the newest 25' – a specific resource and filtering rule. This clearly identifies it as the focused cluster-buy subset and distinguishes it from broader insider-signal siblings without needing to inspect their schemas.

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 phrase 'Rule-2 cluster buys only' plus 'highest-signal subset' tells an agent to use this endpoint for high-conviction cluster signals, not general single-insider signals. It also explains the uniform-price distinction and ranking, but it does not name sibling tools or state explicit when-not conditions, so it stops short of a 5.

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