get_insider_leaderboard

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

Discloses scoring is based on absolute return (not market-adjusted), defines hits, specifies trade filters, and mentions 1-hour caching. Annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint) are supplemented well.

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?

Concise and well-organized: summary sentence, scoring explanation, then parameter list. No fluff, each 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?

Covers input, methodology, and constraints thoroughly. Lacks output format details, but given no output schema, the description is sufficient for an agent to use correctly.

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?

Despite 0% schema coverage, description enumerates all 4 parameters with defaults, allowed values (horizon=3m|6m, order=hit_rate|avg_return), and constraints (min_trades>=5, limit<=100).

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?

Clearly states it provides a ranked leaderboard of insiders by buy track-record, specific to Business plan+. Distinguishes from sibling tools like get_insider_transactions or get_insider_scorecard.

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?

Explains scoring methodology and constraints (e.g., only discretionary open-market buys, matured returns), helping agents decide when to use. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives, but context is clear.

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