insider_clusters

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

With no annotations, the description does real work by disclosing the monetization behavior: $0.05 USDC per call via x402 on Base, auto-paid from a configured wallet, so the agent knows a cost and wallet dependency are involved. However it says nothing about return shape, result limits, or whether the read is safe/reversible, leaving gaps a no-annotation tool should close.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the definition and ranking, followed by the cost disclosure — every sentence earns its place. The em-dash aside is slightly dense but not wasteful.

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 zero-required-param, two-optional-param tool with full schema coverage but no annotations and no output schema, the description covers what it returns conceptually (ranked stocks) and the cost model. It still omits the shape of the ranked results and any limits, which is a modest gap rather than a blocking one.

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% and both parameters (days 1-90 default 14, min_insiders 2-10 default 2) are fully documented in the schema. The description alludes to 'same window' and 'several insiders' but adds no syntax, units, or defaults beyond what the schema already states, so baseline 3 applies.

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 gives a specific resource (insider cluster buying) and defines it precisely: stocks where several distinct insiders bought on the open market in the same window, ranked by insider count and dollar value. It is clearly distinguishable from insider_latest or insider_ticker in substance, though it never names those siblings to route the agent explicitly.

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 phrase 'one of the strongest public insider signals' hints at when this is preferable to a raw insider feed, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement and no named alternative among the insider_* siblings. Use is implied rather than prescribed.

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