sec-intel

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses live-backfilling from EDGAR and day-one freshness, adding valuable behavioral context.

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?

Single sentence that efficiently conveys all key information: inputs, outputs, and data source. No waste.

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?

Describes the three types of returned data and the data source, which is sufficient for a tool with one parameter and no output schema. Minor details like the number of filings are omitted.

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 schema coverage is 0%, but the description explains that 'cik' is a company CIK, thus adding meaning 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 clearly states it returns recent filings, insider activity, and a filing-velocity stat for a given CIK, distinguishing it from siblings like filing_digest or insider_activity.

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 indicates when to use (for combined data per CIK) and mentions day-one availability, but lacks explicit when-not or alternatives.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, or whether inputs are required. It also fails to describe the output format, which is critical given no output schema.

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 very concise at two sentences with no filler, though it could be slightly more structured. Every sentence provides relevant 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?

Given the tool has 7 parameters (most undocumented), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain filtering options, required parameters, output structure, or limitations.

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 only 14% (only 'days' has a description). The description mentions 'last N days' linking to 'days' but does not explain the other 6 parameters (cik, ticker, company, form, item, minEventScore), leaving their semantics unclear.

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 digest of multiple filing types (material 8-K, insider activity, new registrations, periodic reports) over a time filter. It distinguishes from siblings by being a composite summary rather than a specific search or monitoring 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?

The description says 'Best summary signal for a desk,' implying use for quick overviews, but it provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or how it compares to alternatives like search_filings or insider_activity.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description mentions 'recent' and 'insider-cluster detection', providing some behavioral traits, but with no annotations, it lacks details on data freshness, rate limits, or whether the operation is read-only (assumed but not stated).

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 a single concise sentence that conveys the tool's core purpose and optional filters, with no wasted words or redundant content.

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?

While it covers purpose and key filters, it omits explanation of the 'days' parameter and does not describe output format or behavior when no filters are applied, leaving some gaps for a tool with no output schema.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description partially compensates by naming ticker and CIK as optional filters, but fails to mention the 'days' parameter, leaving its purpose and default unclear.

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 it returns recent Form 4/3/5 insider transactions with insider-cluster detection, distinguishing it from sibling tools like search_filings or company_watch which handle broader filings or company data.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., search_filings for non-insider filings). It only mentions optional filters but does not specify prerequisites or contexts where this tool is preferred.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a 'live search' and 'latest filings,' but does not mention authentication needs, rate limits, return format, pagination, or how the full-text search behaves. While not misleading, it lacks depth for a tool with no annotation support.

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 consists of two efficient sentences: the first clearly states the tool's function, and the second suggests its usage context. There is no redundant information, and key points are front-loaded. Every word contributes to understanding.

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 absence of an output schema and annotations, the description should provide more context about return values, error handling, and search syntax. It adequately explains the core functionality but lacks details on what the search results contain, how pagination works, or any limitations. Sibling tools are present but not differentiated beyond the 'ad-hoc' hint.

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 60% (3 of 5 parameters described). The description adds context by stating the tool searches 'full-text' (for q) and 'in a date range' (for start/end), but does not explicitly describe the date parameters 'start' and 'end' or their formats. The added value is moderate, but the description compensates partially for the missing schema descriptions.

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 performs a 'Direct live search of SEC EDGAR full-text for the latest filings of a form type in a date range.' It uses a specific verb ('search') and resource ('SEC EDGAR full-text'), and the phrase 'Use for ad-hoc lookups' helps distinguish it from sibling tools like company_watch or filing_digest.

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 mentions 'Use for ad-hoc lookups,' which gives some context for when to use the tool, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide direct comparisons to sibling tools. More specific guidance on when to prefer alternatives like filing_digest or whats_new_since would improve this dimension.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the filtering capabilities and declares it is for monitoring/research only, but does not mention rate limits, authentication, idempotency, or potential side effects. Basic behavioral context provided.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core function. The phrase 'core lock-in primitive' is somewhat jargon-y but does not detract significantly. Well-structured for quick comprehension.

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 7-parameter tool with no output schema, the description explains the cursor mechanism and filters but lacks details on output format, pagination behavior, default values (e.g., limit default 100), and how to obtain the initial cursor. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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?

71% schema description coverage; the description lists filter parameters (form, ticker, etc.) but does not add detailed semantics beyond what the schema already provides. Parameters without schema descriptions (cik, ticker) are mentioned but not explained further, so only marginal added value.

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 that the tool returns new SEC filings since a cursor token, with a specific verb 'Return' and resource 'SEC filings'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by emphasizing the delta feed mechanism, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 iterative usage with the cursor but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_filings or insider_activity. No guidance on prerequisites or scenarios to avoid.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.