SEC EDGAR filings for a US-listed STOCK (keyless, official primary source): recent 10-K (annual), 10-Q (quarterly), 8-K (material events), S-1, proxy filings, plus recent insider Form-4 trades. Use for deeper due diligence on a stock beyond price, ALONGSIDE stock_quote/stock_safety. Needs a ticker. US-listed companies only.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ticker | Yes | the stock ticker (e.g. AAPL, TSLA, NVDA) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context: 'keyless' (no auth needed), 'official primary source' (credibility), and enumerates the exact filing types included. It does not discuss pagination, rate limits, or return formatting, but for a read-only data retrieval tool this is reasonable coverage.
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 packs substantial information into a single well-structured sentence. The colon-list format makes the filing types scannable, and every clause serves a purpose: scope, content, usage context, and constraints. No wasted words.
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?
For a tool with a single parameter and no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It covers what data is provided, the source authority, use case, related tools, and limitations (US-listed only, requires ticker). An agent would understand exactly what to expect and when to invoke it.
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 100% at the parameter level (ticker is fully described). The description adds an extra constraint—'US-listed companies only'—which clarifies valid ticker values beyond the schema's generic examples. This adds meaningful semantic context.
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 provides SEC EDGAR filings for a US-listed stock, enumerating specific form types (10-K, 10-Q, 8-K, S-1, proxy, Form-4). This distinguishes it from price-focused siblings like stock_quote and stock_safety, making its unique purpose explicit.
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 explicitly says to use it 'for deeper due diligence on a stock beyond price' and 'ALONGSIDE stock_quote/stock_safety', giving clear when-to-use guidance. It also notes the 'US-listed companies only' limitation and the need for a ticker, effectively guiding tool selection.
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.
Many tools share the same core purpose (safety checks) differentiated mainly by chain or asset type, and descriptions are detailed enough to distinguish them most of the time. However, pairs like rug_check/rugcheck and deployer_check/deployer_reputation have overlapping purposes that could lead to misselection.
Most tool names follow a lowercase snake_case pattern with clear descriptors, but there are notable exceptions like 'rugcheck', 'defillama', and 'verify'. Additionally, the 'rug_check' vs 'rugcheck' pair is an obvious naming inconsistency.
44 tools is excessive for any server. Even for a broad security/due-diligence purpose, many tools (especially the robinhood_* series) are highly specialized and could be consolidated into fewer actions.
The tool surface is impressively comprehensive, covering token/NFT safety, transaction simulation, whale/address tracking, stock analysis, prediction markets, and project validation. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no ENS resolution or stock price history), but they are not critical for the server's core purpose.
