Retrieve SEC Schedule 13D / 13G activist & beneficial-ownership filings (>5% stake). Track Carl Icahn, Elliott Management, Pershing Square, Trian moves — the activist signal.
Args: target_ticker: Optional ticker of target company filer: Optional activist filer name (post-filtered) days_back: Lookback window in days (default 90)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| filer | No | ||
| days_back | No | ||
| target_ticker | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description adds no additional behavioral context. It does not mention data freshness, pagination, rate limits, or any side effects beyond the read-only nature.
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 concise, front-loaded with the main purpose, and follows a clear structure: purpose statement, example use, then parameter list. No extraneous text.
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?
The description explains the tool's function and parameters but omits the output structure (e.g., fields in each filing) and whether results are paginated. Given the absence of an output schema, more detail would improve completeness.
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?
Despite schema having no descriptions, the description includes an 'Args' section explaining each parameter (target_ticker, filer, days_back) with defaults. This adds meaning beyond the raw schema, though 'post-filtered' is vague.
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 explicitly states it retrieves SEC Schedule 13D/13G activist filings, with a specific threshold (>5% stake). It distinguishes from siblings like get_form_13f_holdings (institutional holdings) and get_form_4_insider_trades (insider trades) by focusing on activist ownership filings.
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 implies use for tracking activist investors (e.g., Carl Icahn) but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_form_13f_holdings or get_13f_delta. No when-not-to-use or exclusion criteria are provided.
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.