Get insider trading activity

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and destructiveHint annotations, the description adds valuable behavioral context: it separates open-market trades from mechanical activity, warns that most reported insider selling is mechanical, states the tool is US-only, and clarifies that it does not interpret or predict share prices. This aligns with annotations and provides deeper insight into the tool's output semantics.

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 multi-sentence but each sentence serves a purpose: stating the function, highlighting freshness, explaining the open-market vs. mechanical distinction, and adding scope and interpretation caveats. It is slightly verbose but well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, making it easy for an agent to quickly understand the tool's 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?

With no output schema, the description adequately conveys what the tool returns (insider buying/selling activity from Form 4) and the key interpretive distinction between open-market and mechanical trades. It does not enumerate exact return fields, but given the tool's moderate complexity and clear parameter schema, the description provides sufficient context for correct usage.

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 input schema provides comprehensive descriptions for all three parameters (company, limit, since), including guidance on the limit parameter's cost implications. The description itself adds no additional parameter-specific details beyond what the schema already covers, so the baseline score of 3 applies due to high schema coverage.

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 tool retrieves insider trading activity from SEC Form 4 filings, specifying the subjects (officers, directors, 10% owners) and the nature of the data (buying/selling). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_stock_quote or get_price_history, which focus on market prices rather than insider transactions.

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 strong contextual guidance: it notes the freshness (2 business day reporting requirement), the crucial distinction between open-market and mechanical trades, and the US-only scope. It implicitly tells the agent when to use this tool (for insider trading signals) and cautions against misinterpreting mechanical activity, but it does not explicitly name alternative tools for other data types.

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