SEC filing index with direct document URLs; form filters by type (10-K, 10-Q, 8-K, ...). Cost: $0.005.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cik | Yes | ||
| form | No | ||
| limit | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description must disclose all behavioral traits. It mentions the cost ($0.005) but does not describe rate limits, error handling, data freshness, or what happens when no results are found. The description is minimal.
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 sentence with an appended cost note. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no unnecessary words.
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?
With 3 parameters and an output schema, the description gives the essential purpose and form filter. However, it lacks details on output structure (even though output schema exists) and does not address pagination or handling large result sets. It is adequate but has gaps.
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 0%, so the description must add meaning beyond the schema. It only partially explains the 'form' parameter by listing example types, but does not describe the 'cik' (required) or 'limit' parameters. No format or constraints are provided.
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 explicitly states the tool provides an SEC filing index with direct document URLs and mentions form filters by type (10-K, 10-Q, 8-K, ...). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like company_facts or company_financials by focusing on filings and document URLs.
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 is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., company_facts for detailed data, screen_companies for screening). It does not provide exclusions or context for selection.
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.
Each tool has a distinct purpose: quality scoring, valuation, raw facts, filings, financials, peer comparison, industry aggregates, insider activity, institutional ownership, market insights, screening, short pressure, and standard scores. No overlaps in functionality.
All tools use consistent snake_case naming with descriptive prefixes (e.g., company_, buffett_, market_). The pattern is predictable and helps infer tool purpose.
14 tools cover a broad range of SEC fundamentals without being overwhelming. Each tool serves a clear role, and the count is appropriate for a comprehensive financial data API.
Covers core areas: filings, financials, insider trades, institutional ownership, screening, scores, and market insights. Minor gaps (e.g., no direct analyst estimates or corporate events) but overall very well-scoped for the domain.