track_insider_trading

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether the tool is read-only, requires authentication, or has side effects. The return is mentioned but not the behavioral traits (e.g., no mention of rate limits or data freshness).

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 concise with two main parts and bullet-style Args. It is front-loaded with the core purpose. Slight room for improvement in structural clarity (e.g., separating return description).

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 presence of an output schema (not fully shown), the description need not detail returns extensively, but it does mention 'stakeholder table + cluster alerts'. For a tool with two parameters and no annotations, this is adequate but could cover more behavioral context.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must clarify parameters. It explains company_name as 'company name or stock code' and lookback_years with default and max, adding meaning beyond the schema. However, it could specify input format for company_name (e.g., exact ticker or Korean name).

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 analyzes time series of major shareholder stake changes and detects buy/sell clusters. It is specific about the resource (insider trading) and action (track), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_shareholder_info or track_capital_structure.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, limitations, or when not to use it. The description assumes the agent knows to use it for insider trading analysis but offers no comparative context.

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