get_holders_insiders

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait: non-stock assets return an empty result. It also indicates pagination behavior. This adds useful context beyond a basic 'returns a list' statement, though it does not cover error handling or auth requirements.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main function, and every sentence adds value. It is concise without being under-specified.

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 description gives a reasonable overview but lacks clarity on how it differs from the sibling get_holders_insiders_transactions. Without an output schema, it partially describes return content ('recent insider actions, roles, and reported positions') but could be more explicit about the full record structure. This leaves some ambiguity for an agent deciding between tools.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters in detail. The description does not add parameter-level semantics but correctly implies the primary input is a stock symbol. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the burden.

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 returns a paginated list of insider transaction records for an asset, specifying content such as insider actions, roles, and reported positions. However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling tool get_holders_insiders_transactions, which likely performs a similar function, so it lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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 provides explicit when-not guidance: 'Applicable only to stocks — for ETFs and mutual funds returns an empty result.' This establishes clear context for appropriate use. However, it does not mention alternatives or when to prefer this tool over other holder-related tools, so it falls short of a full 5.

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