8-K filings by item (1.01, 1.05, 2.02, 4.01, 4.02, 5.02, 5.07...). text=true adds the item text.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "events_8k"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cik | No | CIK | |
| item | No | item number like 5.02 | |
| text | No | true/false | |
| startDate | No | YYYY-MM-DD |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only discloses one trait: text=true adds the item text. It says nothing about default behavior when no parameters are supplied (all four are optional), pagination, response size when text=true, or any rate/permission constraints on this retrieval.
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?
Two short, front-loaded sentences with zero filler; the resource comes first and the behavioral modifier second. Nothing could be cut without losing information.
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 four-parameter retrieval tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is thin: it does not describe the return shape, what happens when all-optional parameters are omitted, or how results are ordered or paged. The ambiguous 'text' type (string "true/false" rather than boolean) is also left unflagged.
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 100%, so 3 would be the baseline, but the description genuinely adds meaning: it enumerates real item codes accepted by 'item' and clarifies that 'text' returns item text, which the schema reduces to the opaque 'true/false'. CIK and startDate are left to the schema, which already documents them adequately.
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 names a specific resource (8-K filings) and an organizing dimension (item), with concrete item codes that make the scope unambiguous. It does not, however, differentiate itself from siblings like search_filings or structured_form, so an agent must infer why this tool exists alongside them.
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?
There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternative among the ~27 sibling filing tools. Usage is only implied by the phrase '8-K filings by item', which is the bare minimum context an agent needs.
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.