insider_activity

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the burden, and it handles it well: it discloses the data source (SEC EDGAR), the free/tier A nature, the limitation that shares/price/direction are unavailable, and that the limitation is surfaced in the result. It does not describe request/response mechanics, but the key behavioral trap is fully exposed.

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?

One dense sentence that front-loads the core behavior and includes only high-value caveats. Every clause earns its place: source, cost tier, scope, and the critical limitation.

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 count tool with no output schema, the description covers what is computed, the input semantics, and the main limitation. It could add an explicit return-shape line, but nothing essential to selecting and invoking the tool is missing.

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 schema gives only names, types, and a default, while the description adds the essential semantics: 'days' is a trailing window and 'ticker' is the symbol being queried. It does not describe ticker formatting or valid day ranges, but it provides enough context for a correct first call.

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 names a specific operation and resource: counts of Form 4/4-A filings in a trailing days window for a ticker. It also explicitly distinguishes the tool from a buy/sell tally, so an agent cannot confuse it with transaction-level insider tools.

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 frames the tool as an 'insider-paperwork activity signal' and explicitly warns that transaction XML is not parsed, giving a clear when-not use case. It stops short of naming alternative sibling tools for buy/sell detail, so routing guidance is good but not fully explicit.

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