check_10q_coverageFree coverage check against SEC EDGAR for any U.S. ticker: confirms whether 10-Q Highlights can serve it, lists available fiscal periods (newest first), and returns the payable URLs. No charge; the paid product is the extraction itself.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| period | No | Optional fiscal period like fy2026-q1; checks that this dated variant exists | |
| ticker | Yes | U.S. ticker symbol, e.g. AAPL |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark the tool readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds useful behavioral context: it queries EDGAR, orders periods newest-first, and returns payable URLs at no charge. It does not discuss failure modes or rate limits, but that is not required for a simple read-only lookup.
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?
One dense, front-loaded sentence conveys source, scope, outputs, and pricing with no filler. The free-vs-paid distinction is stated at the end without bloating the definition.
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 two-parameter read-only check with no output schema, the description covers what the call does, what it returns, and the key limitation (U.S. tickers). An agent has enough to select and invoke it appropriately.
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%, and the parameter descriptions already explain ticker and the optional period format. The tool description mainly restates the overall purpose rather than adding parameter-level 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?
The description names the exact action (coverage check), the data source (SEC EDGAR), the target (any U.S. ticker), and the outputs (availability, fiscal periods, payable URLs). It clearly distinguishes this pre-purchase check from the paid extraction product.
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?
It explicitly frames the tool as a no-charge coverage check and contrasts it with the paid product (the extraction itself), telling the agent when to use it and when not to. The U.S.-ticker scope is also stated as an inclusion condition.
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.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: checking EDGAR coverage, retrieving payment terms, explaining payment flow, and listing the catalog. There is no overlap or ambiguity among them.
Three tools follow a verb_noun pattern (check_10q_coverage, get_product_terms, list_research) while 'how_to_pay_x402' deviates, using a phrase instead of a consistent verb-first structure. Minor inconsistency but still readable.
With only 4 tools, the server is tightly scoped to its purpose—providing product catalog, coverage checks, and payment information. No unnecessary tools, and the count feels appropriate for the domain.
The surface covers the essential operations for the server's stated purpose: listing products, checking coverage, retrieving terms, and explaining the payment process. No obvious gaps; it fulfills its informational role completely.