FREE preview of the most-recent Chapter 11 business filings — case headers only (name, court, filing date, docket link). The teaser for the restructuring lane.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| days | No | Lookback window in days (default 14). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description bears full burden. It partially discloses behavior: returns only case headers for recent filings. However, it does not explicitly state it is read-only or mention any side effects, rate limits, 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?
Two concise sentences with no fluff. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose and output, making it immediately scannable.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (single parameter, no output schema), the description adequately lists the returned fields. It omits details like pagination or data limits, but for a preview tool this is acceptable.
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% with the 'days' parameter already described as a lookback window. The tool description adds no further meaning or usage details for this parameter, meeting the baseline expectation.
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 a free preview of recent Chapter 11 filings with specific fields (case headers, name, court, filing date, docket link). It identifies itself as a 'teaser', setting it apart from sibling tools like ch11_feed which likely offer more detail.
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 for quick initial previews but does not explicitly specify when to use this tool versus siblings (e.g., ch11_feed, diligence_brief). No guidance on prerequisites or limitations is provided.
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.
Most tools are distinct, but ch11_feed and ch11_preview both target Chapter 11 filings, with the difference being paid vs. free details. This could cause confusion if descriptions aren't read carefully.
Naming is inconsistent: two tools use 'ch11_' prefix, but the rest mix verb_noun (check_recall_exposure), noun (diligence_brief), and adjective_noun (quick_scan). No consistent pattern.
Five tools is well-scoped for a distress diligence server, covering bankruptcy filings, recalls, and a comprehensive brief without being excessive.
The tool set covers core distress signals (bankruptcy, recalls) and a composite brief. Minor gaps like a standalone lawsuit or WARN search exist but are partly addressed by the diligence_brief.