uw_insider

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so the tool's safety profile is clear. The description adds behavioral context by detailing the four actions and their parameter requirements. It does not disclose any additional side effects or limitations beyond what annotations imply.

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 organized with a bullet-type list for actions, making it scannable. It is reasonably concise, though the first sentence could be more direct. The front-loading is good, with the high-level purpose first, then details.

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 tool's complexity (four distinct actions) and the absence of an output schema, the description adequately covers the actions and required parameters. However, it lacks information on output format, error handling, and prerequisites. The empty input schema is a significant gap that the description cannot fully compensate for.

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 is empty, but the description implies required parameters (ticker_symbol, sector, ticker) for specific actions. While the description adds semantics not present in the schema, the mismatch between description and schema creates confusion. This severely undermines the tool's usability for an AI agent.

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 provides access to UnusualWhales insider trading data including transactions and flow. The verb 'access' and resource 'insider trading data' are specific. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like uw_flow or uw_stock, which may also provide similar data types.

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 lists available actions and specifies required parameters for each (e.g., ticker_symbol for transactions, sector for sector_flow). It provides some usage context but no guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings or when not to use it. Alternatives are not mentioned.

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