get_sentiment

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: exclusion of 10b5-1 trades and Business plan requirement, which are not indicated by annotations. No contradictions.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no redundant information. Every sentence adds value: purpose, behavioral trait, and requirement.

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?

No output schema is provided, but the description explains the return format (monthly score -100 to +100) and key behavioral traits. For a simple data retrieval tool with 2 parameters, this is sufficient. Lacks mention of error handling or pagination, but not critical given the context.

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%, so the schema already documents parameters. The description adds minor value by noting the default for 'months' (~12) and symbol example for 'ticker', but does not significantly enhance understanding beyond the 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 uses a specific verb 'Get' and resource 'monthly insider-sentiment score for a ticker', with scale clarification 'MSPR-style, -100 to +100'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_signals or get_key_activity, which cover different aspects of insider data.

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 it automatically excludes 10b5-1 plan trades, indicating when to use for actual insider conviction, and mentions 'Requires Business plan' as a prerequisite. It does not explicitly exclude other use cases but gives clear context.

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