corporate_events8-K current reports with their item numbers (2.02 earnings, 5.02 officer changes, 1.01 agreements and so on), for a ticker or the latest across companies.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| days | No | Window in days (default 30, max 90) | |
| item | No | 8-K item number, e.g. 2.02 | |
| ticker | No | US ticker symbol, e.g. GME. Class shares as on the SEC list, e.g. BRK-B. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / days / descriptionAdded value: +"Window in days (default 30, max 90)"Input schema / properties / days / maximumPrevious value: -365New value: +90Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It does reveal a key behavior: the tool switches between ticker-specific and cross-company latest results based on whether ticker is provided. However, it does not mention default date windows, sorting, pagination, or whether any results are limited, leaving some behavioral ambiguity for a tool with no annotation safety hints.
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 a single sentence that packs in the resource, item-number semantics, examples, and the ticker/latest distinction. It is efficient, though 'and so on' is a minor filler and the sentence is slightly dense.
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 three-parameter, read-only data tool, the description covers the core semantics and usage mode. However, there is no output schema, so the description does not fully clarify what fields or format the returned 8-K reports will have, nor how 'latest across companies' is ordered or limited.
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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents days, item, and ticker well. The description adds modest value by giving concrete item number examples and clarifying the ticker vs. no-ticker behavior, but it does not substantially extend the schema's parameter documentation.
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 identifies the resource (8-K current reports) and the distinguishing feature (item numbers), with concrete examples like 2.02, 5.02, and 1.01. It also notes the two modes: per ticker or latest across companies. It stops short of a more explicit verb like 'retrieves' or 'lists', but the meaning is unambiguous.
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 gives useful context on how to use the tool: pass a ticker for a specific company, or omit it for the latest reports across companies. However, it does not provide when-not-to-use guidance or name alternative tools (e.g., earnings_calendar for earnings dates), so the agent must infer the boundary relative to siblings.
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.