get_insider_activity

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries full burden. It correctly discloses that the tool is equity-only and empty for other types. This is important behavioral info. It does not reveal auth needs or rate limits, but being a read tool that likely mirrors public data, the risk is lower.

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 three sentences, no wasted words. Front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by details on return structure, and ending with a clear constraint. Every sentence earns its place.

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 has an output schema, so return values need not be described in the description. With 2 well-documented params and clear domain-specific constraints, the description is complete enough for an agent to use correctly. Could mention that 'limit' applies to both transactions and roster rows, but that's minor.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add any parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides. It does not explain the meaning of 'limit' or 'symbol' further, but the schema descriptions are themselves clear and complete.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'insider trading activity for a Yahoo symbol', and distinguishes what it returns (individual transactions, summary, roster). It also explicitly states what it does not apply to (ETFs, funds, crypto), which further clarifies its scope.

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 implies when to use (for equity insider activity) and when not (for ETFs, funds, crypto). It does not explicitly name alternative tools for non-equity cases, but the sibling list is long and this tool's restriction is clear.

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