Get Insider Cluster Buys

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the agent knows it's read-only. The description adds behavioral context (identifies periods of cluster buying, interpreted as bullish) which goes beyond the annotation without contradiction. No destructive actions mentioned.

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: first states purpose, second explains condition and interpretation. No unnecessary words, 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?

The description covers the core functionality and significance. With an output schema existing (as indicated in context), the lack of output details is acceptable. Some limitations or edge cases could be mentioned for higher 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?

Only one parameter (ticker) with 100% schema coverage. The description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema's 'Stock ticker symbol'. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema already documents the parameter adequately.

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 detects cluster buying patterns for a company, specifying the condition (3+ distinct insiders within 14-day window) and interpreting it as a strong bullish signal. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_insider_transactions by focusing on cluster detection.

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 indicates when to use the tool (to detect cluster buying patterns) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare to alternatives. The context is clear, but lacking explicit exclusions prevents a top score.

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