Screen companies by financial criteria. filters is a JSON list of [metric, op, value] triples, e.g. [["gross_margin",">",0.6],["revenue",">",1e9]]. Cost: $0.10.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| fy | Yes | ||
| limit | No | ||
| filters | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
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 cost ($0.10) and explains the filter format. However, it does not describe the output, auth needs, or rate limits, which are important behavioral traits for a query tool.
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 sentences, front-loading the purpose and immediately providing a concrete example. No unnecessary words or redundancy.
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 3 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema, the description covers usage of 'filters' thoroughly but omits 'fy' and 'limit'. The cost is helpful, but the lack of param descriptions reduces completeness.
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 0%, so parameters are undocumented in the schema. The description explains the 'filters' parameter format with an example, adding value, but fails to explain 'fy' and 'limit' parameters, leaving significant gaps.
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 'Screen companies by financial criteria,' which is a specific verb-resource pair. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'company_financials' and 'compare_to_peers' by focusing on screening multiple companies based on filter criteria.
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 provides an example of the filter format and mentions cost, which guides usage. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusions, leaving the agent to infer from context.
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.