domain_reportExperimental (outside the core SEC path; not covered by the published accuracy eval, may change or be withdrawn): DNS records, SPF presence, registration date and age, registrar, expiry and RDAP status for a hostname, in one call. Costs $0.01 per call.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| domain | Yes | Bare hostname, e.g. example.com. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it is experimental, not covered by the accuracy eval, may change or be withdrawn, and costs $0.01 per call. It also details the exact data points returned. This goes beyond the annotations to disclose stability, cost, and scope of behavior, though it does not describe failure modes or formatting.
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, well-structured sentence. It front-loads the critical experimental warning, then lists the data points returned, and ends with the cost. There is no fluff or redundant wording. Every element earns its place, making it highly efficient for an agent to parse quickly.
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?
The tool has a single required parameter and no output schema, yet the description enumerates exactly what will be returned (DNS records, SPF, registration details, etc.), giving the agent a clear expectation of the result. It also covers cost and stability. The only omission is discussion of error handling or edge cases (e.g., invalid domains), but given the openWorldHint, this is acceptable. The description is largely complete for the tool's 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?
The input schema fully describes the only parameter 'domain' with the requirement 'Bare hostname, e.g. example.com.' The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description does not need to compensate.
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: retrieving DNS records, SPF presence, registration date/age, registrar, expiry, and RDAP status for a single hostname. The verb is implied (get/report), the resource is explicit (domain information), and the scope is precisely defined. None of the sibling tools overlap with this domain-specific query, so it is easily distinguishable.
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 context that this tool is 'experimental' and 'outside the core SEC path', implying it is not for standard SEC-related queries but for domain information. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or name any alternative tools. The guidance is implied rather than explicit, so while it informs the agent of its niche, it lacks direct usage instructions or exclusions.
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.
Most tools have clearly written descriptions, but several pairs overlap semantically: token_price/token_report, latest_filings/recent_filings, and institutional_holdings/who_holds/activist_stakes all require careful reading to pick the right one. The overlap is not severe enough for a 2, but it is still more than the occasional confusion.
Names are consistently snake_case and mostly descriptive, but the set does not follow one naming convention. It mixes noun phrases (crop_data, token_report, insider_trades) with verb phrases (lookup_company, compare_filings, verify_financial_claim), and pairs like latest_filings/recent_filings create avoidable confusion.
31 tools is too many for what is nominally an SEC Filings server, and the scope sprawls into unrelated domains such as EVM gas, tokens, prediction markets, crop data, and x402 auditing. The count does not feel earned by a coherent workflow; it feels like an uncurated bundle of endpoints.
The SEC filing workflow is reasonably covered: company lookup, search, latest/recent filings, section extraction, 8-K events, comparisons, ownership filings, and XBRL financial checks are all present. However, there is no full-filing retrieval endpoint, no deep company financial history beyond a single concept, and many non-SEC subdomains are only one-off data points, so the overall surface is still incomplete.