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 | ||
| 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.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It only states what is returned (8-K reports with item numbers) but does not disclose read-only nature, rate limits, pagination, or any side effects. It also doesn't mention authentication or data freshness. Minimal behavioral disclosure beyond the basic function.
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, tightly written sentence. It front-loads the primary purpose and includes illustrative examples without extraneous words. Every element earns its place, making it highly efficient.
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 tool has 3 optional parameters and no output schema. The description explains what it returns (reports with item numbers) and mentions the two usage modes (ticker or latest), but it omits the 'days' parameter's role and any hint about the return structure. Given no output schema, some description of expected output fields or pagination 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?
Schema description coverage is 67% (days lacks a description). The description adds meaning to item (examples: 2.02 earnings, 5.02 officer changes) and ticker (implicitly tied to 'for a ticker'), but does not explain the 'days' parameter at all. Since coverage is not high, the description partially compensates but leaves days undefined.
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 specific aspect (item numbers like 2.02, 5.02). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on 8-K filings with item numbers and supports filtering by ticker or latest across companies. The verb 'current reports' implies retrieval, making the purpose 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 provides usage context: 'for a ticker or the latest across companies' indicates when each mode applies. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or mention when not to use this tool compared to siblings like earnings_calendar or company_financials. The guidance is implied rather than explicit.
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.