sec_company_fact_search_evidenceFREE beta. SEC XBRL concept matches with descriptions, multiple observations and source provenance. Intended future paid tier.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cik | Yes | ||
| concept | Yes | Concept name or label fragment, e.g. revenue. |
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, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds beta/pricing context and hints at richer output ('multiple observations and source provenance'), but does not disclose rate limits, auth requirements, or data freshness.
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 short and avoids bloat, but it front-loads a marketing note ('FREE beta') rather than the core function, and the 'Intended future paid tier' sentence does not help an agent invoke the tool.
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 and only a two-parameter search tool, the description should clarify return shape or evidence-tier meaning, but it only gestures at 'multiple observations and source provenance.' It is not complete enough for an agent to know what a call yields.
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 50%: the concept parameter has a description in the schema, but cik has none. The description does not explain either parameter or add format/meaning beyond the schema, so it fails to compensate for the undocumented cik 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 names the resource (SEC XBRL concept matches) and some output traits, but uses a noun phrase rather than a clear action verb and offers no sibling differentiation from sec_company_fact_search_basic. An agent can infer a search operation from the name, but the description itself is vague about the action.
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?
No when-to-use guidance, no alternatives, and no conditions for choosing the evidence tier over the basic tier. The pricing notes ('FREE beta', 'Intended future paid tier') are not usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.