insider_holdings

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It states the purpose (reviewing insider holdings and changes) and data source but does not mention whether the operation is read-only, what the output format is, or any limitations (e.g., date range, real-time vs. lag).

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 concise sentences in Korean cover the essential purpose and parameter. No wasted words, but could be more structured (e.g., separating purpose and parameter explanation).

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 one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should provide more context: what the return data looks like, whether it's historical or current, and how it differs from major_holders. The current description is insufficient.

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 single parameter 'company' is described as accepting a stock code, unique number, or company name, which adds meaning beyond the bare schema (which has no description). However, no example or format details are given.

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 it provides a report on insider holdings and changes for executives and major shareholders. It identifies the resource (elestock.json) and the parameter role. However, it does not clearly distinguish from sibling tool 'major_holders', which likely covers similar territory.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'major_holders' or 'search_disclosures'. No prerequisites, exclusion criteria, or context are provided.

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