All financial statements and cover page of one filing as JSON, from its XBRL.
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": "xbrl_to_json"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cik | No | CIK (optional) | |
| htmUrl | No | or any URL inside the filing | |
| accessionNo | No | accession number |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it says only what is returned ('all financial statements and cover page ... as JSON'). It does not disclose which identifiers are required, error behavior when a filing has no XBRL, or any auth/rate considerations. The output-content statement adds some value, but most behavioral context is missing.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. The trailing 'from its XBRL' is slightly awkward but the core scope is stated immediately. Appropriate size for the amount of information conveyed.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description must convey return values, and it does so at a high level ('all financial statements and cover page as JSON'). Yet it omits the relationship between the three optional identity parameters and any failure modes, leaving meaningful gaps for a zero-required-param extraction tool.
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 already documents cik, htmUrl, and accessionNo, establishing the baseline of 3. The description adds nothing about how the parameters relate (they appear to be alternative filing identifiers) or which to prefer, so no credit above baseline.
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 states a specific conversion: extracting all financial statements and the cover page of one filing from XBRL into JSON. This is a clear verb+resource pairing that distinguishes it from generic siblings like financial_statements. However, it never names or contrasts with those siblings explicitly, leaving the agent to infer the differentiation.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus financial_statements, structured_form, or extract_section. No prerequisites, no mention that the three parameters are alternative ways to identify the same filing, and no exclusions are given.
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.