get_insider_signal

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

No annotations provided; description discloses data source (public SEBI SAST) and output fields but lacks details on read-only nature, error handling, rate limits, or data freshness. The performance claim adds context but is not a behavioral trait.

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 mostly concise and front-loaded with the purpose. However, the marketing-like sentence about conviction signal adds some verbosity. Overall 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?

For a tool with one parameter and no annotations, the description adequately explains the output and usage. Missing details like return type or error handling but still sufficient for simple use.

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 single required parameter 'symbol' is explained with a clear description ('NSE symbol (e.g. RELIANCE, INFY, ZEEL)') and examples in the Args section, compensating for the 0% schema description coverage.

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 it performs 'Insider trading pattern analysis from SEBI SAST disclosures' and enumerates specific outputs (signal, net_signal, transactions). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like nse_insider_trading and get_signal_history.

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 usage for assessing insider conviction but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of prerequisites or conditions.

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