Idx Get Insider Activity

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It indicates a read operation ('Fetch') but does not mention any side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or error handling. It also does not clarify whether the tool returns raw data or processed summaries. The description is not misleading but is minimal in behavioral detail.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that leads with the action and clearly states the resource and source. It is concise with no redundant words or filler. Every part of the sentence contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.

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 simple tool with two parameters and an existing output schema, the description is largely complete. It covers what the tool does and where the data comes from. However, it does not mention any limitations (e.g., only IDX-listed stocks) or clarify the meaning of 'official' disclosures, which could be useful context. The output schema likely covers return values, so this is a minor gap.

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 input schema already provides 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters (ticker and limit). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as format constraints or edge-case behavior. Since the schema is thorough, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('Fetch'), the resource ('official insider disclosures'), and specifies the types of insiders (major shareholders, directors, commissioners trading). It also names the data source ('from Stockbit'), which distinguishes it from other IDX tools like idx_get_market_quote or idx_get_dividends. The purpose is unambiguous and specific.

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 when to use this tool—when insider activity information is needed—but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or how it compares to alternatives. For example, it does not mention that this tool is specifically for official disclosures rather than general trading data. The context is clear but lacks exclusions or alternative routing.

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