assess_insider_activity

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

With no annotations, the description provides substantive behavioral disclosure: it is 'deterministic,' 'non-advisory,' and explicitly states what it does NOT provide (buy, sell, hold, etc.). It mentions coverage limitations. This goes well beyond basic transparency, though it could add details on error handling or data freshness.

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 with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose, and the second sentence effectively clarifies limitations. Every word serves a purpose, achieving high conciseness.

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?

Despite the clear purpose, the description lacks completeness: no output schema exists, and the summary format is not described. The three parameters are left unexplained, and there is no guidance on parameter interactions or expected behavior. Important context about the 'bounded' coverage is vague.

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 description does not explain any of the three parameters (ticker, period, freshness_window_hours). Schema coverage is 0%, and the description adds no meaning beyond the input schema. For example, it doesn't describe how 'period' affects the summary or what 'freshness_window_hours' controls.

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 'deterministic, non-advisory summary of reported public SEC Form 4 insider activity for a ticker.' It specifies the resource (insider activity) and verb (return summary), and distinguishes from investment advice. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, though they appear unrelated.

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 SEC Form 4 insider activity but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives. It notes that the tool uses 'bounded watched-ticker and imported-filing coverage' and does not offer recommendations, which partially clarifies scope. No direct when-not or sibling comparisons are given.

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