form_d_raisesSEC Form D private placements of $5M and up, by issuer name, resolved ticker, date or minimum amount.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max rows, 1-25 (default 10) | |
| query | No | Issuer name (partial) | |
| since | No | ISO date (YYYY-MM-DD); only rows on or after this date | |
| ticker | No | Resolved public parent ticker | |
| min_amount | No | Minimum offering amount USD |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes that this is a safe read operation, and the description adds the meaningful behavioral scope of returning only $5M+ Form D placements. However, it does not disclose details like default limit behavior, result ordering, or whether filters are combined with AND/OR logic.
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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It efficiently communicates the core resource, the threshold, and the available filtering dimensions in a scan-friendly way.
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 read-only, five-parameter query tool, the description covers the resource and filter dimensions but leaves notable gaps: there is no output schema, so the return shape is unstated, and the description does not clarify how multiple filters interact or what a result row contains. This is adequate but not fully complete.
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%, so the schema fully documents all five parameters. The description adds modest semantic context by framing the tool around $5M+ private placements and mentioning issuer name, ticker, date, and minimum amount, but it does not add meaning beyond the schema's parameter 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 identifies the resource (SEC Form D private placements) and the key scope ($5M and up), and it names the main query dimensions. It lacks an explicit verb such as 'list' or 'search', so it reads more like a dataset description than an action, which prevents a 5.
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 the tool can be filtered by issuer name, ticker, date, or amount, but it gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over sibling tools such as outside_money, institutional_holders, or money_trail. There are no exclusions, alternatives, or contextual signals to help an agent decide.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.