adviser_searchSearch SEC-registered investment advisers (RIAs + Exempt Reporting Advisers) by firm name. Returns CRD number, type, regulatory assets under management, state, and whether the firm has Form ADV Item 11 disciplinary disclosures. ~23.4k advisers covered.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| q | Yes | Adviser firm name (>=2 chars) | |
| limit | No | Max results (default 25, max 100) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: the covered universe size, that ERAs are included alongside RIAs, and the exact field set returned including the Item 11 disciplinary-disclosure flag. It does not discuss match behavior (exact vs prefix vs fuzzy) for the name query.
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?
Three short sentences with zero filler: scope first, returned fields second, coverage caveat last. Everything is front-loaded and each sentence carries distinct 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?
With no output schema, the description correctly takes on the burden of naming the return fields (CRD, type, RAUM, state, Item 11 flag) and the population covered. That is close to complete for a read-only lookup; only ranking/pagination behavior and the name-matching semantics remain unstated.
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%, so both q (name, >=2 chars) and limit (default 25, max 100) are fully documented in the schema; baseline 3 applies. The description reinforces that search is by firm name but adds no syntax, matching, or ordering detail beyond the schema.
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 SEC-registered investment advisers") and scopes it to firm-name lookup, with explicit inclusion of Exempt Reporting Advisers and the covered universe (~23.4k). It stops short of differentiating from the closest sibling, advisers_flagged, so an agent must infer the boundary between the two.
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?
Usage is implied by "by firm name" and by the required q parameter, so an agent can reasonably infer this is the name-lookup entry point. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of when to prefer advisers_flagged for the disciplinary-disclosure angle, and no stated fallback if the name is not found.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.