get_insider_buys

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool scans recent filings and returns scored signals based on purchase size, insider role, and cluster buying. It is clearly read-only, though not explicitly stated. No contradictions.

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 well-structured: a purpose sentence, followed by bullet points detailing behavior, parameters, and return type. Every sentence adds value; the academic research line provides context without fluff. Efficient and front-loaded.

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 simplicity (2 parameters, output schema exists), the description is complete. It covers what the tool does, how it works, what parameters do, and what it returns (JSON array scored and ranked). No gaps for effective 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. The Args section explains both parameters: 'days' (look back period with max 30) and 'min_value' (minimum purchase value in USD). Schema only provides defaults and types; description adds meaning and constraints beyond schema.

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 retrieves insider buying signals from SEC Form 4 filings. It specifies the resource (SEC EDGAR filings), verb (get scored signals), and scope (open-market purchases by insiders). It distinguishes from siblings like get_congressional_trades by focusing on corporate insiders.

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 context for usage, mentioning academic research that insider buying predicts returns. This implies use for investment signals. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives among sibling tools, leaving the agent to infer.

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