sec_13f_institutional_whale_insider_tracker

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden and does not meet it. It does not say whether the data is live-pulled from EDGAR or cached, how fresh it is, whether it is read-only (only implied by "Extracts"), or what scope of filings is returned when no issuer filter exists.

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?

A single tight sentence with no filler, front-loading the resource domain. The only waste is the colon-prefixed name echo before the actual verb phrase.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain what comes back and how filings are selected. Crucially, there is no issuer/ticker/CIK parameter, so an agent cannot tell which institutions' 13F holdings or whose Form 4 trades it will receive — a major gap for a tool with only a maxResults knob.

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%, and maxResults is documented with a default, so baseline 3 is appropriate. The description adds nothing about what a "structured item" is, so it does not clarify the one parameter that shapes output volume.

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 ("Extracts") and names two concrete resources: SEC Form 13F institutional holdings and Form 4 insider trading disclosures. That is far clearer than a tautology, but it never distinguishes the tool from the sibling "sec_edgar_filings", and the leading phrase "SEC 13F Institutional Whale & Insider Tracker" largely restates the tool name.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance at all: no statement of which questions this answers versus sec_edgar_filings, no note on whether it returns recent filings or historical ones, and no exclusions. An agent must guess based on the tool name alone.

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