filings_searchSearches recent regulatory filings (full-text) for a company, ticker, or theme (e.g. 'bitcoin treasury'). Returns the most recent matching filings with form type, filer, and a direct document link.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | Free-text query, e.g. a company name, ticker, or theme. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, signaling a safe read operation. The description adds useful context about full-text search and the returned result fields, but it does not disclose limitations such as the exact date range for 'recent' or any pagination constraints. With annotations covering safety, a moderate score is appropriate.
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 two tight sentences. The first sentence front-loads the core action and scope; the second sentence states the return payload. Every clause earns its place with no redundancy or 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?
For a simple one-parameter tool, the description is mostly complete: it explains both the query semantics and the output format (form type, filer, link), compensating for the missing output schema. The only minor gap is the ambiguity of 'recent' (no defined look-back period), which could affect expectations but is not blocking.
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 100%: the query parameter is fully documented with its own example ('a company name, ticker, or theme'). The description repeats the same examples without adding additional semantic detail beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.
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 uses a specific verb ('Searches') and resource ('recent regulatory filings'), specifies the search mode ('full-text'), and lists the exact output fields (form type, filer, direct document link). This clearly differentiates it from siblings like news_search and market_quotes, which cover different domains.
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 when to use the tool (when needing regulatory filings by company, ticker, or theme) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or contrast it with alternatives. No exclusions or routing guidance are provided, leaving the context to be inferred.
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.
Tools are grouped by clear prefixes and mostly target distinct resources; market_quotes vs research_token_view, market_top_movers vs market_trending, and funding_current vs market_quotes have some field or purpose overlap, but descriptions draw enough scope boundaries for an agent to choose correctly in most cases. No two tools are truly interchangeable.
All 30 tool names use lowercase snake_case with a consistent domain-prefix convention such as market_, flow_, research_, sentiment_, and catalysts_, making the surface predictable. Even helpers like utc_time and risk_position_size fit the same noun-oriented pattern without style mixing.
At 30 tools this set crosses the 'too many' threshold, and several tools reproduce data already available through broader ones such as research_token_view and market_quotes. The breadth is defensible for a crypto-research platform, but the surface feels heavy and could be consolidated.
The tool set covers the read-only crypto research workflow thoroughly: market data, candles, derivatives, funding, OI, order book, whale flows, ETF flows, on-chain metrics, news, sentiment, prediction odds, technicals, regime/positioning scans, and position sizing. It also includes health and UTC helpers that close practical workflow gaps, with no obvious dead ends.