[Regulatory Filings] Retrieve sovereign wealth fund (SWF) US equity holdings — Norway GPFG, GIC Singapore, ADIA, PIF. Tracks position changes for the world's largest state-backed investors.
Args: fund: Optional SWF name filter (e.g. "Norway", "GIC", "ADIA") quarter: Informational; the actor returns the most recently reported quarter per fund.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| fund | No | ||
| quarter | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. Description adds that quarter is informational and returns most recent quarter per fund, but no mention of rate limits, auth, or side effects. Adds some value beyond annotations.
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 paragraphs: first for purpose with examples, second for parameter details. No wasted words, front-loaded with critical info.
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?
Adequately covers purpose, parameters, and a behavioral note. Lacks return format or pagination details, but for a simple retrieval tool with two optional params, it's nearly complete.
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?
With 0% schema coverage, description adds meaning: fund is optional SWF name filter, quarter is informational (actor returns latest quarter). Provides examples for fund names. Could specify acceptable formats or default behavior.
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?
Clearly states 'Retrieve sovereign wealth fund (SWF) US equity holdings' with specific examples (Norway GPFG, GIC Singapore, ADIA, PIF). Distinguishes from sibling tools like get_form_13f_holdings by targeting SWF funds.
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 for tracking state-backed investors, but no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives or when-not-to-use. The quarter parameter is described as 'informational' but no further guidance.
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.
Many tools have overlapping functionality across categories (e.g., multiple search_arxiv, search_google_scholar, real estate tools, DNS/WHOIS checks). An agent would struggle to differentiate between similar tools from different categories, leading to ambiguity.
Tools follow a 'category__verb_noun' pattern mostly, but verbs vary (get, search, screen, check, etc.) and some categories use different orders (e.g., 'get_repo_stats' vs 'search_repos'). The consistency is acceptable but not uniform across the entire set.
With 152 tools, the server is excessively large for a single MCP server. While it aims to be an all-in-one gateway, the sheer number overwhelms the agent and likely exceeds practical limits for coherent selection.
The server covers a wide range of domains (finance, real estate, news, developer tools, etc.) but has notable gaps (e.g., social media APIs, CRM tools). Coverage is broad but not exhaustive, and some niche areas (e.g., global stock exchanges) are over-represented.