evm_receiptExperimental (outside the core SEC path; not covered by the published accuracy eval, may change or be withdrawn): Status, gas used, effective gas price and log count for a transaction hash. Costs $0.01 per call.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tx | Yes | 0x-prefixed transaction hash. | |
| chain | No | base or ethereum. Default base. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds the experimental status, the $0.01 cost per call, and lists the specific data fields returned. This goes beyond annotations, though it doesn't mention potential failure modes or behavior under invalid hashes. No contradiction 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 a single concise sentence with the experimental note front-loaded, followed by the output fields and cost. No redundant words; every clause adds value. The structure is efficient and scannable.
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 enumerates the return fields (status, gas used, effective gas price, log count) which suffices for basic usage. It also mentions cost and experimental nature. However, it omits details like response formats, error handling, or chain-specific behavior, which a richer description might include for an experimental 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?
The input schema already provides full descriptions for both parameters (tx: '0x-prefixed transaction hash', chain: 'base or ethereum. Default base.'). The description does not add further parameter-specific detail, relying on the schema's 100% coverage. It only restates 'transaction hash' in prose, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 resource: 'transaction hash', and the specific output: 'Status, gas used, effective gas price and log count'. It says the verb implicitly (returns/provides) which is appropriate. It distinguishes itself from sibling EVM tools (like evm_balance, evm_gas) by its output focus on receipts.
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 implies use when a transaction receipt is needed, mentioning 'for a transaction hash'. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives (e.g., when to use evm_balance for balances) or provide conditions for when not to use it. The experimental caveat gives context but not routing guidance.
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.