Full-text search across SEC EDGAR filings: 10-K, 10-Q, 8-K, and more. Returns filing metadata and matched text excerpts.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | Search query (e.g. "artificial intelligence risk" or company name) | |
| dateFrom | No | Filter filings from this date (YYYY-MM-DD) | |
| filingType | No | Filing type filter (e.g. "10-K", "8-K", "10-Q") | |
| maxResults | No | Max filings (default 25) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Description mentions returns metadata and excerpts, but no details on limitations, rate limits, pagination, or error behavior. Since no annotations, this is insufficient for a search 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?
Two brief sentences conveying purpose and output. No superfluous words, front-loaded with key 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?
Missing details on return format, pagination, query syntax, and date range of filings. With 4 parameters and no output schema or annotations, description should provide more context.
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 covers all parameters with descriptions; tool description adds no extra meaning beyond listing example filing types. Baseline 3 due to 100% schema coverage.
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?
Description clearly states full-text search across SEC EDGAR filings with specific filing types (10-K, 10-Q, 8-K). Distinguishes from siblings which cover other domains like arXiv, Crunchbase, LinkedIn.
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?
Implies usage when needing SEC filing search, but no explicit guidance on when not to use or comparisons to sibling tools like resolve_company_identity or search_crunchbase.
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.
Most tools target unique data sources or specific actions (e.g., search_zillow vs. get_zillow_property_details are clearly sequential). A few LinkedIn-related tools (find_linkedin_candidates vs. search_linkedin_employees) have overlapping purposes but their descriptions clarify distinct use cases. Overall, confusion is minimal and descriptions resolve ambiguity.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case, using verbs like search, get, find, scrape, analyze, lookup, resolve, and verify. The pattern is predictable across the entire set, making it easy for an agent to infer function from name.
With 32 tools, the server exceeds the 'too many' threshold of 25+. While the broad scope of web data mining justifies some diversity, the count is unwieldy and could overwhelm an agent's selection process. A smaller, more focused set per domain would improve coherence.
The toolset covers a wide range of data retrieval needs: company research, real estate, job listings, academic research, and government records. For a read-only data aggregation service, there are no major lifecycle gaps, though some subdomains like social media scraping only cover Reddit and LinkedIn, missing other platforms. Overall, it is reasonably complete for its stated purpose.
