Real SEC events from the last 24 hours on the watchlist: new 10-K, 10-Q or 8-K filings, each with the paid route to inspect it. Empty list when nothing was filed. Free.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ticker | No | Optional stock ticker filter on the watchlist (e.g. AAPL, NVDA, TSLA) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose real behavior: a fixed 24-hour freshness window, the specific filing types, an empty-list result when nothing was filed, and a cost signal ('Free' vs a paid inspection route). It omits auth requirements and rate limits, but covers more than the minimum.
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 where every clause earns its place: resource, time window, filing types, access route, empty-state behavior, and cost. No preamble or filler.
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 must convey the return shape, and it does at a high level: a list of filings, empty when nothing was filed, each carrying a paid inspection route. Per-item fields beyond that are left implicit, which keeps it just short of complete.
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 100% and the ticker parameter is fully documented in the schema, so baseline is 3. The description's mention of 'the watchlist' adds useful framing about what the ticker filters against but no syntax or format detail beyond the schema.
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 concrete resource and scope: 'Real SEC events from the last 24 hours on the watchlist: new 10-K, 10-Q or 8-K filings.' An agent can distinguish this listing tool from analysis siblings like analyze_sec_filing or sec_analyst. It stops short of naming an alternative outright, so a 5 isn't warranted.
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: the 24-hour watchlist window and the pointer to 'the paid route to inspect it' suggest this is the discovery step before a paid inspection call. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not or named alternative, so guidance remains inferential.
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.