Finviz-only: insider, institutional and short interest

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does add one genuinely useful behavioral trait — results degrade gracefully, returning only 'whichever Finviz could serve' — which matters for downstream parsing. However, it says nothing about rate limits, data delay/freshness, or required plan access, and the envelope/block structure it describes is largely already covered by the output 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?

Front-loaded with the one-line purpose and the differentiator, followed by a conventional Args/Returns block. Every line is scannable and there is no filler, though the Returns paragraph restates output-schema content and 'Ticker.' is a wasted line.

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 two-parameter read-only data fetch with an output schema available, this covers purpose, both parameters and the partial-availability caveat, which is enough to invoke it correctly. The remaining gap is minor: no example symbol format or bounds/sane values for 'limit'.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for both parameters. It partially does: 'limit' is clarified as max rows PER TABLE, which is non-obvious given three stacked tables. But 'symbol: Ticker.' is pure tautology, adding no format, case, or exchange-suffix guidance.

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?

Names a specific verb set and three concrete resources (Form-4 insider transactions with monthly aggregates, institutional positions, FINRA short-interest history), and explicitly contrasts with siblings via '(Finviz-only)' / 'no other provider here offers'. An agent can tell this apart from stock_filings or stock_quote without opening the schema.

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 'Finviz-only' framing plus 'no other provider here offers' gives clear positive selection context: use this when you need insider, institutional or short-interest data because no sibling covers it. It stops short of explicit exclusions or the opposite direction (e.g. use stock_filings for raw filings instead), so it is clear guidance but not a full when/when-not map.

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