AlphaCreek SEC Filings MCP

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

With annotations already declaring readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, the description adds valuable behavioral context: the fallback logic when artifact_document_id is omitted (resolves latest filing) and the registry-specific TOC node id formats (HTML vs sec-parser ids). These details go beyond the schema and annotations, disclosing expected output structure.

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 three sentences long, front-loaded with the primary purpose, then conditional behavior, then registry-specific notes. No filler or repetition exists; every sentence earns its place.

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 lacking an output schema, the description communicates what the TOC contains (node ids) and how to interpret them per registry. It covers the essential edge cases (omitted artifact_document_id, FCA specifics) without overwhelming detail. A slight gap is not mentioning the overall return shape, but this is acceptable given the complexity and sibling 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 only 40%, leaving ticker, company, and artifact_document_id undocumented. The description compensates by explaining artifact_document_id's role in resolving the latest filing, and it clarifies filing_registry usage for FCA. While ticker/company are self-explanatory, the description effectively fills the gaps for the trickier parameters.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ('Return the full filing table of contents for one filing'), making the tool's core function immediately clear. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly referencing list_filings for discovery, and the mention of FCA node id formats highlights its unique role in returning TOC structure rather than content.

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 a direct usage guideline: 'Use list_filings first to discover a specific reporting period.' It also gives conditional guidance for FCA filings with 'pass filing_registry=fca_nsm'. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use get_latest_filing or read_node_content as alternatives, so it lacks full exclusionary guidance.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds meaningful context about the return shape: it includes a Filing metadata object, with document_type and announcement_type details, including allowed values. It does not contradict annotations and provides transparency about the returned fields 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?

The description is long and detailed, with the first sentence being concise and purposeful. However, it repeats the document_type enum that already exists in the schema, which is redundant. The announcement_type list is useful but adds bulk. Overall, it is structured but not maximally concise.

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 simple annotations, the description needs to explain the return format and usage context. It covers document_type and announcement_type, but omits key behavior: what 'latest' means (e.g., by filing date), how the tool handles both registries (schema says 'omit to search both', but description doesn't), and the expected input requirements (none required, but how are ticker/company used?). These gaps leave the description incomplete for a tool with this 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?

Schema coverage is 50% with document_type and filing_registry described in the schema. However, the description fails to clarify the ticker and company parameters: their relationship, whether one is required, or precedence if both are provided. The document_type enumeration in the description is about the result field, not the filter parameter, so it adds little parameter semantics.

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 and resource: 'Return latest filing metadata for a company or ticker.' It clearly identifies the tool's scope and differentiates it from sibling tools like list_filings (which likely lists multiple filings) and get_filing_toc (likely returns a table of contents).

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It states what the tool does but does not mention scenarios where it should be preferred or excluded, nor does it reference sibling tools or conditions like 'use list_filings for multiple results'.

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

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description only needs to add behavioral details. It adds ordering ('newest first'), output fields (artifact_document_id, dates, Filing metadata object), and explains document_type and announcement_type semantics. No contradictions with 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 front-loaded with the main action, followed by usage guidance, then output details. It is somewhat lengthy due to enumerating announcement_type values, but all information is relevant. No filler.

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 exists, so the description carries the burden of explaining return values. It does so by describing row contents (artifact_document_id, dates, Filing metadata, document_type, announcement_type). It also provides context for registry selection. However, it omits details on limit behavior and how ticker vs company interact, leaving small gaps.

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 only 40% (document_type and filing_registry have descriptions; limit, ticker, company lack schema descriptions). The description clarifies filing_registry usage and expands on document_type and announcement_type values, but does not explain limit, ticker, or company parameter semantics, leaving partial compensation for the low coverage.

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 begins with 'List available filings for a ticker (newest first) with artifact_document_id and dates', clearly specifying the verb (List), resource (filings), and scope (ticker, ordering). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_latest_filing and get_filing_toc by focusing on listing all filings, not a specific one.

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?

It provides explicit usage guidance: 'Use filing_registry=fca_nsm for UK FCA NSM reports' and 'Use this first when you need a specific reporting period.' This indicates when to use it, though it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives.

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

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

The description goes well beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by detailing the output format (ARTIFACT_DOCUMENT_ID, NODE_ID, TITLE, CITATION_URL, etc.), the behavior of expanding TOC nodes into child blocks, and the inclusion of a CITATIONS_IN_THIS_RESPONSE list. This enriches the agent's understanding of what to expect from the invocation.

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 dense paragraph but well-structured with clear sequences: input method, output format, expansion behavior, and citations. Every sentence adds value, though it is longer than strictly necessary. Still, it avoids redundancy and effectively front-loads the core purpose.

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 lacking an output schema, the description thoroughly explains the return format, including field names and meanings, citation link behavior, and node expansion. This gives the agent everything needed to invoke the tool and interpret results without ambiguity.

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 coverage is 67% (node_id and node_ids have descriptions, artifact_document_id does not). The description compensates by explaining how node_id and node_ids relate to TOC/NODE_ID lines, and it clarifies their usage with examples like 'pf2a, page12'. artifact_document_id is implied through the context 'in a filing,' though not explicitly described.

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: 'Return content for one or more navigation nodes in a filing.' It specifies the resource (navigation nodes within a filing) and the action (return content), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_filing_toc and list_filings, which handle different aspects.

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 clear usage context by explaining how to pass node ids from TOC lines and the distinction between single and batch reads. It doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives, but the purpose (reading content) implies when it should be used versus TOC retrieval. This meets the 'clear context, no exclusions' benchmark.

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