get_dataset_statusRow counts, latest ingest timestamps, and earliest covered filing date for each dataset (Form 4, 8-K, registrations). Call this to learn what date range a query can be answered from.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare this tool read-only and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about what status data is exposed and how it can inform query feasibility, but it does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as response size, staleness, or any operational caveats. Given the annotation coverage, a 3 is appropriate.
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 concise sentences: the first enumerates the returned fields and datasets, and the second gives the practical use case. There is no filler, and the most decision-relevant information is front-loaded.
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 zero-parameter status tool with read-only annotations, the description is complete. It states what is returned, for which datasets, and why an agent should call it. No output schema exists, but the description sufficiently outlines the output dimensions.
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 has zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to document about parameters. The schema description coverage is effectively 100%. The description does not add or need to add parameter semantics; the baseline for zero-parameter tools is 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 names a specific resource (dataset coverage/freshness) and enumerates exactly what it returns: row counts, latest ingest timestamps, and earliest covered filing dates for each dataset. It also names the datasets covered (Form 4, 8-K, registrations), distinguishing it from sibling tools that query events, trades, or 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 explicitly states when to call the tool: 'Call this to learn what date range a query can be answered from.' This is clear usage context. It does not explicitly name when not to use it or mention alternatives, so it stops 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.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct resource and action: corporate events, insider filings, IPO registrations, dataset status, and schema. The pairings of list/fetch for insider filings and registrations follow a clear pattern, so there is no meaningful overlap.
All seven tools use a consistent get_* prefix with a clear object or dataset name. The naming is uniform and predictable, making the tool surface easy to navigate.
Seven tools is well-scoped for a read-only SEC filing query service. Each tool earns its place, covering list, fetch, status, and schema needs without redundancy or bloat.
The Form 4 and registration domains have both list and single-record fetch capabilities, and dataset status/schema cover operational needs. A minor gap is that 8-K corporate events have no single-event fetch by accession, and IPO registration listing lacks explicit filter options beyond the envelope.