get_insider_activity

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden. It discloses the output structure (transactions, summary, roster) and a key behavioral limitation (empty for ETFs/funds/crypto). It does not mention rate limits or authentication, but as a read-only data tool with an output schema, these are less critical. The provided constraints add real value beyond the schema.

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 compact: a one-sentence purpose statement followed by essential usage caveats. Every sentence earns its place—symbol resolution guidance and the equity-only note are critical for correct invocation. Nothing is wasteful or padded.

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 value details are already covered. The description covers input requirements, symbol resolution, and data scope. It could have briefly mentioned the 'limit' parameter's effect on the summary vs. transactions, but the schema's 'Limit' description handles this. Overall, complete for a retrieval tool with good schema coverage.

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%, and the schema already provides detailed descriptions for both 'symbol' and 'limit'. The description reinforces the symbol constraint with examples and the 'never' rule, which is helpful but largely redundant. It adds no new meaning for the 'limit' parameter beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'Get insider trading activity for a Yahoo symbol', a specific verb+resource+scope. It further details exactly what is returned (individual transactions, 6-month summary, insider roster) and explicitly distinguishes itself by stating 'Equity-only; empty for ETFs, funds, and crypto.' This clearly sets it apart from sibling tools like get_holders or get_company_info.

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 gives clear guidance: symbol must be a native Yahoo ticker, never ISIN/WKN/company name, and to use the 'search' tool to resolve non-ticker inputs. It also states the equity-only limitation, implying when the tool will return data. While it doesn't explicitly name alternatives for other data types, the context is sufficient for typical retrieval use.

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