insider_ticker

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It usefully discloses the $0.02 USDC per-call cost and automatic wallet payment, and it summarizes return metrics, but it omits read-only status, rate limits, failure/charge behavior, and data freshness.

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, front-loads the tool's purpose, and then adds the critical cost/payment detail. The summary metrics are compact and no sentence is wasted.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description summarizes what is returned: buy vs sell dollar value, distinct buyers/sellers, and a net_buying/net_selling signal. It also discloses the per-call cost, though it could mention data freshness or error behavior for fuller completeness.

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%, so the symbol and days parameters are already documented in the schema. The description's 'over a window' phrasing adds only marginal context and does not explain defaults, ranges, or formats beyond what the schema provides.

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 states a specific resource and scope: insider buys and sells for one ticker over a look-back window, plus summary metrics. It is clear but does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools such as insider_latest or insider_clusters.

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?

Usage is implied by 'for a stock' and 'over a window,' giving enough context to infer when this tool applies. However, it does not state when to use it instead of sibling insider tools, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites beyond wallet payment.

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