Get insider cluster metrics

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description doesn't need to restate safety. It adds valuable behavioral context by indicating metrics appear under a `data` key and by explaining the clusterScore interpretation. No contradictions with annotations observed.

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 just two sentences, front-loads the output fields, includes an interpretive note, and names the companion tool. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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 one-parameter read-only tool without an output schema, the description lists all return fields, explains their meaning, and relates the tool to insider trades. This is sufficient for the agent to understand what it will receive and why it matters.

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 sole parameter 'ticker' has zero schema description coverage, and the description only says 'for a ticker,' providing no format, examples, or constraints. Since schema coverage is 0%, the description should compensate but does not, leaving the agent to infer everything from the parameter name.

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 tool returns insider-buying cluster metrics for a ticker and lists the exact fields provided. It also distinguishes itself from stoquant_get_insider_trades by noting it pairs with that tool for raw transactions, so an agent can tell them apart.

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 use cases: evaluating cluster buying as a bullish signal and complementing raw insider transaction data. It names the sibling tool for raw transactions, providing context for when to use this tool vs. the alternative, though it stops short of explicit when-not-to-use guidance.

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