insider_filing_lookupThe single Rule-2 record for one SEC filing accession, with its filing_url. Returns an error if no gated filing matches the accession.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| accession | Yes | SEC filing accession, e.g. 0001493152-26-040454 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does disclose the return item (single Rule-2 record + filing_url) and an error on no gated match. It does not, however, mention read-only/safety status, access restrictions, or any other operational constraints beyond the brief 'gated' hint.
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 sentences with no filler; the resource and scope are front-loaded and the error condition adds useful information. Every sentence earns its place.
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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description provides the lookup key, the returned object (including filing_url), and the failure condition. It is complete enough to invoke correctly, though the full Rule-2 record shape is not enumerated.
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 already documents the only parameter (accession) with an example, so the description adds no new parameter-level meaning. With 100% schema coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 identifies a specific resource: the single Rule-2 SEC filing record for one accession, and states that it includes the filing_url. This accession-keyed lookup is clearly distinguished from sibling signal/date/ticker tools, so an agent can tell what it does.
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 phrase 'for one SEC filing accession' implies that the tool is for resolving a single known filing ID, but the description never explicitly says when to prefer it over the sibling signal/cluster tools or when not to use it. Usage is inferable rather than spelled out.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.