insiders_institutions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states a read operation ('Get') but does not disclose data freshness, whether results include historical ownership or current holdings, response format, or any limitations. In the context of many similar insider-related tools, this is a significant gap for an agent deciding whether the tool meets the user's needs.

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, concise sentence with no redundancy or filler. It is appropriately brief for the complexity of the tool, though it could benefit from a few more details without becoming verbose. The structure is acceptable for a simple data retrieval tool.

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 tool appears to return institutional ownership data for a single ticker, but the description does not specify what exactly is returned (e.g., percentage owned, number of institutions, changes over time) or clarify how it differs from adjacent tools like insiders_ownership. With no output schema and multiple sibling tools covering similar domains, the description is insufficiently complete for an agent to confidently distinguish and use it.

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 schema covers 100% of the parameter (ticker) with a description 'Stock ticker', which is clear enough. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline of 3 is appropriate, but no extra value is contributed.

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 states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('institutional ownership data'), clearly indicating the tool retrieves institutional ownership information. However, it does not differentiate this from sibling tools like insiders_ownership or insiders_funds, which could refer to similar data. The lack of explicit distinction leaves the agent to infer differences from the tool name alone.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention conditions, prerequisites, or context for selecting it over sibling tools such as insiders_ownership, insiders_activity, or insiders_transactions. An agent has no way to know whether this tool is appropriate for a given request without additional schema or naming clues.

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