SEC EDGAR 10-K annual report filing history by ticker. (x402: 0.001 USDC per call)
HTTP equivalent: GET /x402/sec-10-k-annual-filing Payment: x402 protocol — send X-PAYMENT header with base64 payment payload, or X-API-Key / X-Owner-Key / Bearer token to bypass.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations only include a title, so the description must bear the full transparency burden. It does disclose operational behaviors: the x402 payment cost (0.001 USDC per call), the HTTP equivalent, and authentication bypass methods. However, it lacks any detail about data return behavior (e.g., fields, date range, pagination) or side effects, so the transparency is only partial.
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 concise and well-structured: the first sentence states the core purpose, and the second sentence details payment and authentication in a compact list format. There is no redundant information or excessive length, and the most important purpose is front-loaded.
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 tool with no output schema and an empty input schema, the description should explain what data the agent will receive and how to provide the required ticker. It explains payment and HTTP mapping but omits return value details and leaves the ticker parameter implied rather than explicit. These gaps make it only partially complete for an agent to use effectively.
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?
The input schema has no parameters, so a baseline of 4 applies, but the description says the tool works 'by ticker,' implying an undocumented parameter. This adds a semantic hint beyond the empty schema but fails to specify the parameter name or format, leaving a gap. The description partially compensates for the schema's silence but not fully.
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 provides SEC EDGAR 10-K annual report filing history by ticker, identifying both the resource and the query scope. This distinguishes it from sibling SEC filing tools like sec_10_q_quarterly_filing and sec_8_k_real_time_filings, which cover different filing types.
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 gives clear context for when to use this tool: to access 10-K annual filing history by ticker. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the specificity of '10-K annual' and the sibling tool names imply the appropriate selection context. A dedicated alternative statement would round out this dimension a bit better.
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.
Multiple tool pairs are exact duplicates (e.g., wallet_analysis/wallet_analyzer, honeypot_check/rugpull_detector, defi_yield/defi_yield_rates) with identical descriptions, and many overlapping scanners (squeeze_scanner variants). An agent cannot reliably distinguish these tools.
Names are all snake_case, but conventions vary wildly: some are resource names (btc_price), some are actions (list_magnets), some are generic utilities (calculator), and duplicates use different naming patterns for the same function (wallet_analysis vs wallet_analyzer). No consistent verb_noun or resource_action pattern.
139 tools is an extreme count for any MCP server, far exceeding the 50+ threshold. The scope is a grab-bag of unrelated domains (crypto, FDA, SEC, utilities, web scraping), suggesting no curation.
The set is a shallow pile of read-only queries and utilities with no lifecycle management for any one domain. Many sub-areas have only one or two tools, and duplicates occupy slots where distinct operations should be. The lack of a clear domain makes completeness impossible to assess, but the surface is redundant rather than comprehensive.