Veroq

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and discloses critical operational details: cost ('2 credits'), return structure ('Transaction list with insider name...Plus summary stats'), and data provenance ('SEC Form 4'). Missing only rate limits or caching behavior.

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?

Excellent structure with clear section headers (WHEN TO USE, RETURNS, COST, EXAMPLE). Information is front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. No redundant or wasted text; every line provides distinct operational value.

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?

For a single-parameter read tool, the description is complete. It compensates for the missing output schema by detailing return values, and compensates for missing annotations by disclosing credit cost. No additional context is needed for correct invocation.

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 the ticker parameter fully documented in the schema ('Ticker symbol (e.g. AAPL...)'). The description provides a JSON example, but with complete schema coverage, the baseline is 3 and the example offers only marginal additive value.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('insider trading activity'), explicitly identifying the data source ('SEC Form 4 filings') and distinguishing from siblings like veroq_congress (congressional trading) and veroq_institutions (institutional holdings).

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?

Includes an explicit 'WHEN TO USE' section ('To check if insiders are buying or selling a stock') with context about use case ('institutional-grade analysis'). However, it does not explicitly name alternatives like veroq_congress or veroq_filings for different trading data sources.

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