Bulk, Block & Insider Deals

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, covering safety. The description adds context about what data is returned (fields, deal types) but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits like rate limits, auth needs, or consequences. It does not contradict the annotations, so a 3 is appropriate—it adds some value but relies on annotations for the safety profile.

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 zero fluff. The main purpose is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds a concrete use case and a filtering note. Every sentence earns its place, making it highly efficient.

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 moderate complexity, a 100% schema-covered parameter set, and the lack of an output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It explains what the tool does, what it returns, and the optional filter. There is no missing information an agent needs to call it correctly; pagination is already in the schema's limit parameter.

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 100%, so all parameters (symbol, type, limit, etc.) are already documented with descriptions in the schema. The tool description clarifies the purpose of the symbol (stock) and the type (deal type) but does not add meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is correct because the schema carries the parameter semantics.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Get large-trade history for a stock' and enumerates the exact deal types (bulk, block, insider, SAST) and fields returned (counterparty, side, quantity, price, value). It answers a concrete question ('who has been buying or selling X?'), which clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like get_stock_news or get_stock_quote.

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 clear context for when to use the tool (when the user wants large-trade/deal history) and mentions the optional filtering by deal type. However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools or when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5 but is still clear context without exclusions.

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