get_insider_scorecard

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds extensive behavioral context: it explicitly states what transactions are included/excluded (TransactionCode=P, no 10b5-1), how returns are calculated (absolute, anchored at filing close), defines a 'hit', and explains that fields are null when sampleSufficient=false. No contradictions with annotations.

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 concise yet comprehensive, with six sentences that each add value. It is front-loaded with the purpose and provides necessary details without redundancy. Optimal length for information density.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description thoroughly explains the return fields, their interpretation (fractions, null conditions), and the methodology. For a simple one-parameter tool, this covers all relevant behavioral and output aspects.

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?

There is only one parameter 'cik' (string) with no description in the schema (0% coverage). The tool description does not explicitly define 'cik', but the context of 'insider scorecard' and the tool name imply it is the insider's CIK identifier. The meaning is inferable but not explicit.

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 starts with a clear verb 'Get' and specific resource 'insider buy track-record scorecard', defining exactly what the tool returns. It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on a scorecard for a specific insider, not listings or 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 states the tool is for Pro plan+ and explains when score fields are null (sample size <5). It implicitly advises against using this tool for non-discretionary buys or small samples, but does not explicitly compare to alternatives like get_insider_transactions.

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