filingpulse

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the description's contribution is the disclosure that results are sorted newest-first and returned in a {data, total, limit, offset} envelope. The paginated envelope shape is genuinely useful context an agent cannot infer from annotations, though permission/rate-limit behavior remains unstated.

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 tightly packed sentences: the first defines the resource and its ordering, the second covers filtering and the return envelope. Nothing is redundant and the highest-value information leads.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description fills that gap by naming the response envelope, and all seven parameters are documented in the schema. For a read-only filtered listing endpoint, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 every parameter is already documented in the schema, including the ticker-to-CIK resolution caveat. The description restates the filterable fields but adds no syntax, defaults, or constraints beyond what the schema provides, making 3 the correct baseline.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('List SEC 8-K corporate events') with classification scope ('by official item code') and ordering ('newest first'), which cleanly separates it from siblings like get_insider_filing and get_ipo_registrations.

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?

Enumerates the available filter axes (item code, issuer ticker, CIK, since-date) and gives concrete item-code examples, so the agent knows how to scope a query. It never names a sibling as an alternative or states when a different tool would be preferable, so it stops short of explicit when-not guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, destructiveHint=false), so the lower bar applies. The description adds genuine behavioral context by disclosing that the response reports data freshness and coverage boundaries, which tells the agent the corpus is not necessarily up to the current date.

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, tightly written, with the return contents front-loaded and the usage cue second. Every clause earns its place and only one call-to-action is given.

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?

With no parameters and no output schema, the description must convey what the agent gets back, and it does so adequately (counts, ingest timestamps, earliest covered filing date). It stops short of stating the result shape or units, but it is complete enough for a zero-argument status tool.

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 tool takes no parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The listed return fields describe output, not inputs, and correctly do not pretend otherwise.

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 names the specific resource (each dataset) and enumerates the exact fields returned — row counts, latest ingest timestamps, earliest covered filing date — plus concrete dataset types (Form 4, 8-K, registrations). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_schema and the get_insider_* query tools.

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?

"Call this to learn what date range a query can be answered from" gives an explicit use context and frames it as a prerequisite check before querying. It does not name an alternative tool or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond that: the response includes all transaction legs, holdings, and footnotes, signalling a comprehensive payload rather than a summary. It omits any error behavior for a malformed accession, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence naming the resource, the key, an example, and the payload contents — no filler and nothing buried.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly compensates by enumerating what the filing payload contains (transaction legs, holdings, footnotes). The annotations cover safety, and the input format is documented in both schema and description. Only error handling for bad accessions is left unstated.

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?

There is one parameter with 100% schema description coverage, and the schema already documents both accepted forms (dashed or dashless archive-URL). The description only repeats an example accession, which is duplicative rather than additive, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (fetch), a precisely scoped resource (one insider ownership filing, Form 3/4/5), and the exact lookup key (SEC accession number) with a concrete example. This is clearly distinguishable from the plural-scanning sibling get_insider_trades without opening either schema.

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?

Usage is implied by the required accession-number input and the example format, so an agent can infer this is the single-filing lookup. However, the description never states when to prefer this over get_insider_trades or get_corporate_events, and names no alternatives or prerequisites.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Beyond the readOnlyHint and destructiveHint annotations, the description discloses important behavioral details: numeric values are returned as strings exactly as filed, every object includes accession and filed_date, and responses use a {data, total, limit, offset} paging envelope. It also notes the live-forward date cutoff for Forms 3/5 and the normalized/hosted nature of the data. These details help an agent correctly interpret results without needing to make assumptions about data types or structure.

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 efficiently organized: it front-loads the action and resource, then details response contents, filters, paging, and a value proposition in four sentences. Every sentence adds meaningful information without repetition or fluff. The structure allows an agent to quickly extract the core function and important caveats.

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?

Even without an output schema, the description covers the essential return structure, data-typing quirks, sorting, filtering options, and pagination. It gives enough detail for an agent to invoke the tool and interpret the response correctly. The only omissions, such as rate limits or auth requirements, are outside the intended scope and not contradicted by annotations.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds a useful clarification that 'cik' refers to the issuer CIK (the schema only says 'SEC CIK number'), and it reiterates the cross-issuer semantics of owner_cik. It does not add much for the other parameters, but the issuer CIK disambiguation justifies a 4.

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 'List normalized SEC insider ownership filings' with specifics on form types, ordering, and contents. This distinguishes it from sibling get_insider_filing, which suggests a single-filing tool, by emphasizing the list/paging behavior. The coverage of form variants and filters leaves no ambiguity about the tool's function.

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 clear context: an agent should use this tool to retrieve filtered lists of SEC insider ownership filings, with explanation of the available filters and paging envelope. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusions, but the 'List' verb and the mention of 'no EDGAR crawling' make the intended use case evident. Lacking an explicit 'when not to use' reference is a minor gap.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations cover the safety profile (read-only, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower, yet the description still adds real behavior: newest-first ordering, cross-stage threading via file number, the historical coverage boundary, and the exact {data, total, limit, offset} response envelope. It does not mention auth requirements or throttling, so not a 5.

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?

Four front-loaded sentences, opening with verb+resource and ordering, then enrichment, then coverage caveat, then return shape. Every sentence carries information an agent would otherwise have to discover empirically; no boilerplate or redundancy.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by describing the envelope and field-level content of issuer objects, and all 8 parameters are documented in the schema. Remaining gaps are minor: no mention of permission/auth requirements and no explicit contrast with the detail-oriented get_registration_event sibling.

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 coverage is 88%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds semantics the schema lacks: file_number is described as following one offering across lifecycle stages, the stage filter is mapped to concrete filing forms, and the issuer object's fields (SIC code, state of incorporation, former names) are surfaced. It does not explain since/until interplay beyond what the schema already notes.

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?

Specific verb+resource with enumerated scope: 'List S-1/F-1 registration lifecycle events' covering registration statements, amendments, EFFECT notices, and 424B1/424B4 prospectuses. It is far more precise than a generic 'get filings'. However, it never distinguishes itself from the singular sibling get_registration_event or from get_corporate_events, so the sibling-differentiation element of a 5 is missing.

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?

Gives clear operative context: results are ordered newest first, records are threaded by SEC file number, and coverage is 'live-forward since 2026-08-01', which tells the agent exactly which queries will return data. It stops short of naming an alternative tool or stating when-not to use it, so no explicit exclusion guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds domain framing (S-1/IPO lifecycle) but nothing about what a lookup misses, auth needs, or error behavior when an accession is unknown; with no output schema this leaves some behavioral gaps.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence naming verb, resource, and lookup key with zero wasted words. Nothing is buried or redundant.

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, read-only, closed-world lookup with no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient — an agent knows exactly what to pass and what it retrieves. Only minor gaps remain, such as result shape expectations or behavior on an unknown accession.

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% and the schema already explains that both dashed and dashless accession forms are accepted. The description only restates the parameter's role, adding no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (Fetch), a specific resource (one S-1/IPO registration lifecycle event), and the keying parameter (SEC accession number). It distinguishes retrieval of a single event from the list-oriented sibling get_ipo_registrations, though it does not name that sibling explicitly.

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 phrasing 'by SEC accession number' implies this is a lookup-by-id tool, so usage is inferable rather than stated. There is no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives guidance nor any exclusion relative to get_ipo_registrations or get_corporate_events.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, closed-world), so the lower bar applies. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond the annotations: the schema is 'frozen' and 'additive-only', and the design rules (strings-as-filed, null-never-missing) tell the agent what guarantees the data contracts hold.

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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the resource ('the frozen schema-v1 contract for FilingPulse objects') then lists contents via a colon. No filler, no redundancy, appropriate length for a reference tool.

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?

With no output schema, the description must convey what a caller gets back, and it does so by naming the sections and design rules. For a one-parameter, read-only reference tool this is nearly complete; only the 'overview' default value and a hint that this is static documentation are not spelled out.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It enumerates content areas matching five of the six enum values (form4, event_8k, registration_event, list envelope, transaction_codes), with 'design rules' implicitly covering the default 'overview' section. It could be sharper about the default, but the mapping is largely recoverable.

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 names a specific resource (the frozen schema-v1 contract) and enumerates exactly what it documents: form4, event_8k, registration_event, the list envelope, design rules, and the transaction-code table. This clearly separates it from all sibling tools, which fetch data rather than describe the data contract.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated — an agent infers it should call this to learn the schema before interpreting other tools' output. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor any statement that this is a prerequisite/companion to the sibling data tools.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.