Retrieve upcoming IPO calendar — pricing date, shares offered, price range, lead underwriters.
Args: days_forward: Calendar horizon in days (default 30) — passed via the upstream date_range enum
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| days_forward | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, so the tool is safe to invoke. The description adds that it returns specific IPO calendar fields, but does not disclose rate limits, authentication requirements, or any other behavioral traits beyond what annotations provide.
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 brief: one sentence describing the tool's purpose and one line for the parameter. It is front-loaded and contains no filler. Every part adds value.
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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately explains the tool's purpose and the parameter's meaning. It also lists the key return fields (pricing date, shares offered, etc.), though it lacks details on potential limitations or data scope.
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 has 0% description coverage, but the description adds an explanation for the 'days_forward' parameter: it is a calendar horizon in days with a default of 30, and mentions an 'upstream date_range enum'. This adds semantic meaning beyond the raw schema, though it remains somewhat ambiguous.
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 verb 'Retrieve' and resource 'upcoming IPO calendar', listing specific data points (pricing date, shares offered, price range, lead underwriters). This distinguishes it from sibling tools which focus on other financial events (earnings, insider trades, etc.).
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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_earnings_calendar. No exclusion criteria or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving the agent without context for appropriate invocation.
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.
Each tool targets a distinct regulatory filing or financial data type with clear, non-overlapping descriptions. Even similar concepts like 13F holdings vs. delta are well-differentiated.
Most tools follow a consistent 'get_<noun>' pattern, with a single exception 'detect_insider_cluster'. Overall naming is predictable and readable.
17 tools is slightly above the ideal 3-15 range but justified by the broad domain of regulatory filings and financial data. Each tool serves a clear purpose.
The server covers a comprehensive set of regulatory filings (13F, Form 4, 8K, etc.) and additional financial data (analyst targets, options, short interest). Minor gaps like Form 144 are acceptable given the scope.