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 declare readOnlyHint=true. Description adds that it is free, lists fiscal periods (newest first), returns payable URLs, and confirms the paid product is the extraction itself. No contradictions.
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?
Two sentences, each earn its place. Front-loaded with purpose and key details. No filler.
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?
No output schema, but description clearly states what the tool returns (fiscal periods, URLs). Adequately covers all needed context for a simple coverage check 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?
Schema coverage is 100%. Description adds example format for period (fy2026-q1) and explains its behavior (checks that dated variant exists). This adds value 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?
Description uses specific verbs ('checks', 'confirms', 'lists', 'returns') and explicitly names the resource (SEC EDGAR, 10-Q Highlights) and ticker. It distinguishes from siblings by being a coverage check tool.
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?
States when to use: for free coverage check of any U.S. ticker. Notes that the paid product is the extraction, implying use before purchasing. However, no explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives among siblings.
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: coverage checking, product listing, payment terms retrieval, and payment process guidance. There is no semantic overlap; an agent can unambiguously select the right tool for each task.
Most names follow a verb_noun pattern (check_10q_coverage, get_product_terms, list_research), but 'how_to_pay_x402' deviates by being a phrase rather than a verb_noun structure. The inconsistency is minor, but it breaks the otherwise predictable pattern.
With only 4 tools, the server is tightly scoped to its purpose—providing discovery, coverage checks, terms, and payment guidance for x402 research products. Each tool contributes essential distinct functionality, making this an appropriate and lean surface.
The tool set fully covers the informational needs for interacting with the research catalog: enumerating products, checking coverage, retrieving payment terms, and understanding the payment process. No critical gaps are apparent for its stated purpose.