get_insider_trades

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

No annotations exist, so the description must disclose behavior. It states the tool 'Returns up to 100 recent trades' and lists output fields. However, it does not specify the recency window, whether data is real-time or delayed, or any access limitations.

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 informative with an example and use cases. Slightly verbose but well-structured, with key information 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?

No output schema exists, but the description fully enumerates the 7 fields returned (insider name, title, transaction type, share count, price per share, total value, filing date), making the tool's output predictable.

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 coverage is 100% (both parameters described in schema). The description adds examples but does not substantially enhance understanding beyond the schema's own descriptions.

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 uses a specific verb-resource combination: 'Get recent insider trading activity'. It clearly distinguishes the tool's purpose from sibling tools like get_price_history or get_financial_statements by listing exact transaction types and citing example queries.

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?

Explicit use cases are provided (e.g., 'when asked about insider buying/selling', 'Are AAPL insiders buying?') and interpretive context ('Heavy insider buying can signal confidence while selling may indicate concerns'). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool.

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