AlphaCreek SEC Filings MCP

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is clear. The description adds behavioral context: it returns the full TOC and resolves to the latest filing when artifact_document_id is omitted. However, it does not disclose potential edge cases (e.g., multiple matching filings) or error conditions.

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 two sentences with no fluff. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second provides fallback behavior and a usage hint. Information is front-loaded and 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?

Given the lack of output schema and 4 parameters, the description partially explains the tool's behavior but leaves gaps. It does not describe the structure of the returned TOC, nor how to handle conflicts between parameters (e.g., both ticker and artifact_document_id provided). The advice to use list_filings is helpful but incomplete for a complete understanding.

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 0%, so description must compensate. The description explains that ticker, company, and document_type serve as fallback when artifact_document_id is omitted. This adds meaning beyond the schema. However, it does not explain the relationship between ticker and company (e.g., are they mutually exclusive?) or provide format/constraints for each parameter.

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 'Return the full filing table of contents for one filing.' It specifies the verb (return) and resource (filing TOC), and differentiates from siblings like list_filings and get_latest_filing by explicitly advising to use list_filings first. The fallback behavior when artifact_document_id is omitted is also clearly explained.

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 explicitly advises 'Use list_filings first to discover a specific reporting period,' which provides clear context for when to use this tool. It also explains the alternative behavior when artifact_document_id is omitted. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare to get_latest_filing.

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 the description's addition of 'Return latest filing metadata' adds some context (company/ticker scope) but does not elaborate on edge cases or behavior 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 a single, focused sentence with no wasted words, earning its place by efficiently conveying the tool's 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?

Given three unannotated parameters and no output schema, the description lacks detail on parameter usage, return format, and error cases, making it incomplete for an agent to reliably invoke the tool.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate but only hints at 'company or ticker' without explaining the parameters individually, their relationships, or the document_type enum.

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 verb 'Return' and resource 'latest filing metadata' for a company or ticker, which effectively distinguishes this tool from siblings like get_filing_toc and list_filings.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any conditions or exclusions. It simply states functionality without contextual usage advice.

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 adds the ordering behavior (newest first) beyond the readOnlyHint annotation. It does not disclose pagination, limit behavior, or any side effects. With annotations already indicating a safe read operation, the description provides modest added value.

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 extremely concise with two sentences that front-load the primary action and purpose. No redundant words or repetition of schema information.

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 a moderate number of parameters and no output schema, the description fails to explain the return format beyond listing fields, does not clarify parameter interplay (e.g., ticker vs company), and omits behavior for limit and document_type. This leaves significant gaps in the agent's understanding.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It only mentions the ticker parameter, ignoring limit, company, and document_type. The agent receives no guidance on how to use these parameters or their roles, leading to ambiguity.

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 lists filings for a ticker, ordered newest first, and includes artifact_document_id and dates. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_latest_filing or get_filing_toc, relying on an implied workflow order.

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 advises to use this tool first when needing a specific reporting period, providing some usage context. However, it does not explain when to avoid it or suggest alternatives, leaving the agent to infer from sibling names.

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. Description adds output format details and instructions on granular child nodes, enriching behavioral understanding.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then explains parameters and output. Every sentence adds value, though could be slightly more 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?

For a read-only tool with annotations and no output schema, the description explains usage, output format, and citation guidance well. Minor gap: artifact_document_id meaning is implied.

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 covers 67% of parameters. Description adds meaning for node_id/node_ids by linking to TOC, but artifact_document_id remains undescribed. Baseline 3 with partial compensation.

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?

Clearly states verb 'return content' and resource 'navigation nodes in a filing'. Distinguishes from sibling tools like get_filing_toc which returns TOC, not node 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?

Provides source of node ids (TOC lines) and explains how to pass nodes. Lacks explicit when-to-use vs. alternatives, but gives enough context for typical use.

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