Get Insider Transactions

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

Annotations include readOnlyHint: true, and description aligns with read-only behavior by stating 'Returns individual buy/sell transactions.' Discloses pagination and filtering behavior beyond annotations. No contradictions.

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 with key information front-loaded. Every sentence adds value, no wasted words. Structure is efficient and easy to parse.

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 6 parameters, output schema present, and no nested objects, the description fully covers the tool's capabilities: pagination, filtering by year/month/transactionCode, and the use case. Nothing essential is missing.

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% with descriptions, but description adds value by explaining transactionCode with examples (P=Purchase, S=Sale, etc.) and clarifying that month requires year. This enhances understanding beyond the schema.

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?

Description clearly states 'Get detailed insider transaction history for a company from Form 4 filings' with specific verb and resource. It also lists what is returned (insider name, title, shares, price, transaction codes), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_insider_positions or get_insider_cluster_buys.

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?

Provides explicit guidance on when to use: 'Supports pagination for companies with extensive insider activity' and 'Filter by year/month... use transactionCode to find only purchases...' Includes a use case: 'Useful for identifying first insider buy since X patterns.' Does not explicitly state when not to use, but context from sibling tools makes it clear.

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