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?

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint). It explains the two distinct result structures (one metadata object vs. a filings list), details the document_type and announcement_type fields, and describes how parameter combinations affect behavior. 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 purpose and then systematically explains modes and field details. It is slightly verbose but every sentence adds value. The structure is logical and easy to parse.

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 complexity (two modes, multiple parameters, no output schema), the description is remarkably complete. It covers all parameter combinations, result structures, field meanings, and enum values. The agent has sufficient information to decide when and how to use 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 60% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining the effect of omitting ticker/company, the role of filing_registry, and the meaning of document_type values including FCA press subtypes. This adds value beyond the schema, though ticker and company parameters lack explicit descriptions.

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 returns the latest filing metadata for a company or ticker and explains both modes (with company/ticker and without). It is specific about the verb and resource, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_filing_toc or list_filings, so a 4 is appropriate.

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 explicit guidance on when to use each mode: with ticker/company for a specific company, or omit them for newly ingested filings. It also advises omitting filing_registry in the latter mode to include both SEC and FCA. This is clear contextual guidance, though it does not list alternative tools or when to avoid.

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.

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

Beyond the readOnly/destructive annotations, it discloses exact adjacent-token phrase matching, stemming behavior, score boosts, concept-group fallback, candidate-only output, and a max of 3 matches per filing. This adds substantial behavioral context without contradicting 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?

Long but structured and front-loaded: purpose first, then a numbered search procedure, then concrete examples. The detail is warranted for a complex query tool, though a small amount of duplication with schema descriptions exists.

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?

Even without an output schema, it enumerates exact result fields and explains that results are candidates requiring verification via read_node_content. It covers query construction, date/ticker filtering, exclusions, and follow-up searching, so nothing essential is missing.

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 complete, and the description adds high-value nuance: query phrases must be verbatim adjacent-token phrases, concept_groups are AND across groups and OR within any_of, steming does not add synonyms, broad topic words should not be used alone, and ticher/ne_ticker semantics are clarified.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Search US SEC 8-K and 6-K current-report nodes for company events and disclosures.' It also scopes the use case ('discover issuers across a date range') and explicitly excludes 10-K/10-Q, making it distinguishable from sibling filing-access tools.

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 explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance: 'Use this to discover issuers across a date range. Do not use this for 10-K or 10-Q filings.' It also directs follow-up verification to read_node_content and describes the iterative ne_tickers workflow.

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