get_insider_holdings

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It goes beyond a simple statement by revealing the time window ('past 10 years'), the nature of data ('buyer/seller activity'), and the subscription constraint. While it does not detail output format or error handling, it adequately discloses the tool's read-oriented behavior and key limitations for a simple query tool.

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 short sentences, each offering distinct information: purpose, requirement, and data scope. There is no redundancy, and key details are front-loaded in the first sentence. Every sentence earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 low complexity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations). The description covers the core aspects: what it does, the input constraint, the subscription requirement, and the type of data returned. It does not fully specify the return structure, but the description's mention of 'buyer/seller activity' gives a reasonable picture. Given the simplicity, it is sufficiently complete.

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 already documents instList as 'Array of instrument IDs (max 50)' with 100% coverage. The description adds minimal extra meaning by specifying 'Nordic instruments', which clarifies the interpretation of IDs. However, this is a marginal addition beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Get insider trading holdings for up to 50 Nordic instruments.' It identifies a specific resource (insider trading holdings), a scope (Nordic instruments, max 50), and there are no sibling tools that overlap with this niche. The verb 'Get' and the subject matter clearly distinguish it from related tools like get_short_positions or get_buybacks.

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 conveys clear usage context by specifying the instrument scope ('Nordic instruments'), the maximum batch size (50), and the subscription requirement ('Requires Pro+ subscription'). It implies when to use the tool (for Nordic insider data) and when not to (if no Pro+ subscription), but does not explicitly mention alternative tools. This meets the 'clear context, no exclusions' bar for a 4.

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