get_signals

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint), the description adds significant behavioral detail: it automatically filters out 10b5-1 plan trades (a common pitfall for scrapers), and reiterates the plan requirement. This transparency aids the agent in understanding execution behavior without contradicting 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 (two sentences), front-loads the purpose, and includes only essential information without extraneous detail. Every sentence adds value: the first defines the tool, the second adds a key differentiator and access 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?

Given the tool has 5 parameters (none required) and no output schema, the description adequately covers the core behavior and filtering logic. However, it lacks any indication of the returned data structure or pagination behavior, which would be helpful for an agent. Still, it is mostly complete for its complexity.

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 has 100% coverage, so the description adds minimal parameter context. The description mentions 'cluster buy/sell signals' which aligns with the 'cluster_buy' and 'cluster_sell' booleans, but does not explain their usage or interaction (e.g., whether they can be used together). A 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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: retrieving cluster buy/sell signals based on multiple insiders transacting in the same direction. It uses a specific verb ('Get') and defines the resource ('cluster buy/sell signals'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'get_insider_transactions' and 'get_sentiment'.

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 provides useful context: it automatically excludes 10b5-1 plan trades, a unique differentiator. It also notes the requirement of a Business plan. However, it does not explicitly explain when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it, which would elevate the score.

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