get_sentiment

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint) are minimal; the description adds critical behavior: automatic exclusion of 10b5-1 plan trades, explaining that the score reflects discretionary conviction. This is beyond the 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?

Four concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value: purpose, behavioral note, alternative usage, requirement. No redundancy.

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 no output schema, the description adequately explains the return value (one point per month, range -100 to +100). Combined with the schema and minimal annotations, the description is sufficient for a simple read-only tool.

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 description coverage is 100%; both parameters have clear descriptions. The tool description adds only minor nuance (e.g., case-insensitive for ticker, default months), not significantly beyond what the schema provides.

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 specifies the verb (get), resource (insider-sentiment score), and scope (by ticker, monthly, with range -100 to +100). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_transactions and get_signals by noting they provide trade-level detail.

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?

Explicitly states when to use alternatives: 'Use get_transactions or get_signals for the trade-level detail behind a given month.' Also notes the Business plan requirement, setting usage prerequisites.

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