Schedule 13D/13G beneficial ownership filings — identifies activist (13D) or passive (13G) 5%+ shareholders with intent classification. Returns activist signal. Source: SEC EDGAR. Cryptographically attested with a post-quantum signed settlement receipt. Verify at trust.stratalize.com/verify.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ticker | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With annotations already declaring the tool read-only and non-destructive, the description adds valuable behavioral context: data provenance (SEC EDGAR), cryptographic attestation with a post-quantum signed settlement receipt, and a verification URL. It also discloses the output as an activist signal. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.
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 compact and front-loaded, with the core purpose in the first sentence and supporting details (return signal, source, attestation, verification) in following clauses. Every sentence adds relevant information, and there is no fluff or repetition of schema/annotation content.
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 single-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description is largely complete: it explains the filing types, the shareholder threshold, the intent classification, the return signal, the source, and verification method. The main gap is the lack of output structure detail, but the high-level 'returns activist signal' is sufficient for a simple data retrieval use case.
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 only provides a 'ticker' parameter with length constraints and no description. The tool description never explains what the ticker should be, its format, or its meaning beyond what the parameter name implies. With schema_description_coverage at 0%, the description fails to compensate for the missing parameter documentation.
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 identifies Schedule 13D/13G beneficial ownership filings and distinguishes activist (13D) versus passive (13G) 5%+ shareholders. It names a specific resource (SEC EDGAR beneficial ownership filings) and a specific actionable output (activist signal), making its purpose distinct from sibling tools like get_sec_insider_trading.
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 clear context on what the tool returns (activist/passive classification and activist signal), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_sec_insider_trading. There are no exclusions or alternative recommendations, so usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.
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 tools have overlapping purposes, e.g., get_inflation_benchmark and get_bls_inflation_components, get_commodity_benchmark and get_agricultural_commodity_benchmark. Descriptions provide some differentiation, but many benchmark tools cover similar domains, leading to high potential for misselection.
All tools follow a consistent 'get_' prefix with snake_case nouns, e.g., get_inflation_benchmark, get_ma_multiples_benchmark. No mixing of conventions or irregular naming patterns.
46 tools is excessive for a server focused on financial benchmarks and intelligence. While the domain is broad, many tools could be consolidated. The high count may overwhelm agents and suggests insufficient scoping.
The toolset covers a wide range of financial data—benchmarks, regulatory filings, commodity prices—but lacks granular tools like individual stock prices or sector-specific indices. Some areas (e.g., credit unions) are well-covered, but other common financial operations (e.g., portfolio analytics) are absent.