get_insider_signal

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and provides useful context: data source (public SEBI SAST disclosures), tracked transaction types (promoter/director/KMP), and detailed return fields (signal, net_signal, transactions, price change). It stops short of disclosing limitations like update frequency or historical depth, but is transparent for a read-only analysis tool.

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 opens with a clear purpose, then uses a 'Returns:' list and an 'Args:' section for structure. The example quote adds flavor but is not strictly necessary; still, the overall length is reasonable and information is front-loaded.

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?

The description covers the essential aspects for a simple one-parameter tool: what it does, data source, outputs, and parameter format. An output schema exists, so return values don't need to be re-explained. It is complete enough, though it could benefit from explicitly differentiating when to use this over closely related siblings.

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 input schema only defines 'symbol' as a string with no description. The description compensates completely by specifying 'NSE symbol' and providing concrete examples (RELIANCE, INFY, ZEEL). This bridges the 0% schema_description_coverage effectively.

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 function: 'Insider trading pattern analysis from SEBI SAST disclosures (public).' It specifies the resource (insider trading data) and the action (pattern analysis, returning a signal). It distinguishes from siblings like nse_insider_trading by focusing on derived conviction signals (BUY/SELL/NEUTRAL) rather than raw disclosures.

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 when to use the tool (when assessing insider conviction, e.g., 'Insiders buying their own stock = strongest possible conviction signal') but does not explicitly compare to alternatives like nse_insider_trading or promoter_shareholding. There are no exclusion statements or direct references to sibling tools.

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