kap_insider_islemleri

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It identifies the data source (KAP) and the filtered population (board members and major shareholders), and 'listele' implies a read-only operation. However, it does not mention pagination, ordering, time range, or any limitations, which keeps it at a mid-range score.

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 a single, focused sentence with no filler. It clearly states the action, resource, and source, and the parenthetical '(Insider)' adds useful clarification without extra length.

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?

For a simple, single-optional-parameter list tool, the description is largely sufficient: it states the domain, subject, and action, and the output schema covers return structure. A minor gap is the lack of explicit mention of whether all historical disclosures or only recent ones are returned.

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 covers 100% of the single parameter, and the hisse_kodu description includes examples and default behavior. The tool description adds no additional parameter information, so the schema-driven baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('listele') and a clear resource: share buy/sell (Insider) disclosures by board members and major shareholders via KAP. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tool kap_son_bildirimler, which covers general KAP notifications.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no exclusions, and no mention of prerequisites. The intended use case is only implied by the resource type, and there is no differentiation from kap_son_bildirimler or other KAP-related tools.

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