Get Insider Trading Intelligence

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds valuable behavioral context: explains transaction breakdown by SEC code, fields like netSharesSold12m and isPrimarilyTaxWithholding, and pagination support. 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?

The description is a single, well-structured paragraph that front-loads the purpose and efficiently conveys all necessary details without unnecessary repetition. Every sentence adds value.

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 complexity of insider data, the description covers key aspects (cluster buying, transaction breakdown, flags, pagination) and leverages the output schema. It feels complete for an AI agent to understand what data to expect.

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%, and the description merely reiterates the parameters (ticker, limit, offset) without adding significant new information beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'Get insider trading discovery data for a company' and lists specific features like cluster buying detection, entity-centric insider model, and Form 4 cross-referencing, distinguishing it from sibling tools such as get_insider_transactions which focus on raw transactions.

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 usage for comprehensive insider analysis but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_insider_transactions or get_insider_positions. There is no direct guidance or exclusions.

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