Get Institution Activity

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds 'Reads the number of trailing periods to include,' which clarifies parameter behavior but does not disclose additional traits like data source frequency or response format. With annotations present, the description provides adequate but minimal extra context.

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: the first states the core purpose with specific verbs and resources, and the second adds a brief parameter note. No unnecessary words, front-loaded with key info. This is an exemplary efficient description.

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 simplicity (2 parameters, output schema exists), the description covers the essential purpose and parameter roles. It mentions '13F periods' for context. It could note the required CIK, but the schema already does that. For a read-only tool with rich schema, it is nearly complete.

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%, so the schema already describes both parameters (cik as SEC CIK, periods with min/max). The description adds only that periods 'include' trailing periods, which is a slight restatement. It does not add significant meaning beyond the schema, resulting in a baseline score.

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 gets an institution's position changes over recent 13F periods by CIK, specifying the resource (position changes) and the constraint (13F periods). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_institution_holdings (snapshot) and get_institution_position_changes (likely without period specificity).

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 when historical position changes over multiple quarters are needed, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., get_institution_holdings for current holdings) or provide exclusions. Usage context is inferred but not guided.

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