insider_trading

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the output content (insider name, role, transaction type, shares, etc.) and the SEC Form 4 source, but does not mention potential limitations like data freshness, rate limits, or geographic scope. The 'Get' verb implies read-only, but it does not explicitly confirm safety or behavior.

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 front-loaded with a clear purpose statement, then lists return fields and parameters in a compact, scannable format. Every sentence earns its place with no unnecessary fluff.

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?

For a simple two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers return values (transactions with fields and sentiment summary) and parameter usage. It lacks some contextual details like error handling or data limitations, but for this complexity level, 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?

With zero schema coverage, the description fully documents both parameters. It explains symbols format ('Single ticker or comma-separated list') and days_back meaning ('Trailing days to look back (default 90)'). This adds significant value beyond the bare 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get insider trading activity (SEC Form 4) for one or more stocks.' It uses a specific verb (Get), names the resource (SEC Form 4 insider trading activity), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like stock_quote or fundamentals.

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 by specifying what data it returns, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide any exclusions. It lacks direct guidance on when to choose this over sibling tools like news_sentiment or fundamentals.

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