Get Insider Positions

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds that data is derived from Form 4 filings, includes a lookupMode field, and explains the fallback logic (issuer first, then insider). This adds meaningful context beyond the annotation.

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 three concise sentences. The first sentence is the main purpose, followed by two sentences that add necessary nuance. No wasted words.

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?

Given the tool's dual behavior and the presence of an output schema (not detailed), the description adequately explains both use cases, the lookupMode field, and the data source. It is complete for an agent to understand the tool's functionality.

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 schema covers the cik parameter with a description, but the tool description adds the dual interpretation logic (issuer vs. insider) and the fallback behavior, providing significant additional semantics.

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 retrieves current open insider positions for a CIK, distinguishing between issuer and insider interpretations. It uses a specific verb 'Get' and identifies the resource as 'insider positions', differentiating it from siblings like get_insider_positions_by_ticker.

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 explains when to use each CIK type (issuer vs. insider) and implies that for ticker-based lookups, other tools like get_insider_positions_by_ticker should be used. While not explicit about alternatives, it provides clear context for the two primary use cases.

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