Ground one public-company claim against CURRENT gov facts via the live contradiction-engine. Returns the dual-cited record if a verifiable 10-K-vs-USAspending contradiction exists, else an HONEST null ('checked, no contradiction at medium/high confidence as of T') — itself audit evidence.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ticker | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description effectively communicates the tool's behavior: it returns a dual-cited record if a contradiction exists, or a descriptive null otherwise. It also notes the response serves as audit evidence, providing useful context beyond a simple return type.
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 concise at two sentences, but the first sentence contains jargon ('live contradiction-engine', 'dual-cited record') that may reduce clarity. Nonetheless, it avoids unnecessary information.
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?
The description explains what the tool returns in both success and failure cases, but it omits details like error handling for invalid tickers, rate limits, or prerequisites. Given the tool's specialized nature, additional context would improve completeness.
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 'ticker' parameter is not described in the schema (0% coverage) and the description does not explain its meaning or format. While 'ticker' is somewhat self-explanatory as a stock ticker, the lack of explicit documentation forces the agent to infer its usage.
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 specifies the tool's action: 'Ground one public-company claim against CURRENT gov facts via the live contradiction-engine.' It uniquely identifies the resource (public-company claim) and distinguishes itself from siblings like 'screen_entity' by focusing on contradiction checking.
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 verifying a public-company claim against government data, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'build_evidence_pack' or 'verify_pack', nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites.
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: building an evidence pack, grounding a claim, screening an entity, and verifying a pack. No overlap or ambiguity.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (build_evidence_pack, ground_claim, screen_entity, verify_pack), making them predictable.
With only 4 tools, the server is tightly scoped to the core workflow of building, grounding, screening, and verifying compliance evidence. Each tool earns its place.
The tool surface covers the essential lifecycle for compliance evidence: creation, verification, and supporting checks. A minor gap is the absence of a tool to retrieve pack details without verification, but this is not critical.