Find clinical trials whose results are overdue under FDAAA 801 / 42 CFR Part 11 (results due within 1 year of primary completion). Filter by sponsor name or stock ticker. Returns public-record facts from ClinicalTrials.gov — NOT a finding of violation or legal/investment advice.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ticker | No | Stock ticker, e.g. 'BAYRY' | |
| minDays | No | Minimum days overdue | |
| sponsor | No | Sponsor company name (partial match), e.g. 'Novartis' |
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 that results are from ClinicalTrials.gov and are public-record facts, not a finding of violation. For a read-only lookup tool, this is sufficient and honest.
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 pack the core purpose, regulatory context, filters, and disclaimer. No wasted words; front-loaded with the key action.
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 no output schema, the description explains the return type (public-record facts) and what it is not. All three parameters are optional and explained in schema; the description adds the regulatory context. Sufficient for an agent to use correctly.
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%, so parameters are already described in the schema. The description adds context about the regulatory basis and the meaning of 'overdue', but does not add new details for individual parameters beyond what the schema provides.
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 finds overdue clinical trials under specific regulations, specifies filters, and distinguishes itself from legal advice. It uses a specific verb ('Find') and resource ('clinical trials'), leaving no ambiguity.
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 explicitly states when to use the tool (to find overdue trials) and how to filter (by sponsor name or ticker). It also clarifies what the tool does NOT provide (legal or investment advice). No alternative tools exist to compare, but the guidance is clear.
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.
With only one tool, there is no possibility of confusion between tools. The tool's purpose is clearly described and distinct by default.
A single tool cannot exhibit inconsistency. The name 'overdue_trials' follows a descriptive adjective_noun pattern, which is clear and predictable.
The server has a narrow purpose (finding overdue trials), so one tool is borderline appropriate. While minimal, it covers the primary use case, but a few additional tools (e.g., for listing sponsors or retrieving trial details) could enhance the scope.
The tool adequately covers the core function of querying overdue trials by sponsor or ticker. However, it lacks filtering by other criteria (e.g., trial status, date range) or the ability to retrieve individual trial details, which are minor gaps.