The issuer record as of any date, from the sealed vintage: signed and receipted (RCO-10060).
Scored across 4 tools
The four tools mostly target distinct operations: issuer resolution, point-in-time issuer records, disclosure events, and node roster lookup. However, resolve_issuer and get_as_of both accept issuer identifiers and return issuer-related data, while list_events_since overlaps with the disclosure content embedded in get_as_of. The descriptions clarify the boundaries, but an agent could still briefly hesitate between resolving an issuer and requesting its as-of record.
All tool names use snake_case and begin with a verb, giving a predictable overall pattern: get_as_of, list_events_since, list_nodes, resolve_issuer. The minor deviation is that get_as_of is verb-preposition rather than a clean verb_noun form, and list_events_since adds a temporal suffix. The convention is still readable and consistent enough for an agent.
Four tools is well within the appropriate range for a focused read-only data-vintage server. Each tool earns its place by covering a distinct part of the workflow: issuer discovery, dated record retrieval, event listing, and node routing. There is no obvious filler or overexpansion.
The surface covers the core read-only workflows: resolve an issuer, retrieve its signed as-of record, list disclosure events since a date, and inspect market nodes. Minor gaps remain, such as no issuer search/list by name, no dedicated event-detail tool, and receipt verification only referenced externally. These are workable gaps rather than dead ends for the stated purpose.
get_as_of is the issuer record as it stood on a date: an issuer by ticker, ISIN or LEI plus a date returns the signed record of that day — every field with its source and read date, the sealed disclosure lines of the market-year up to that date — signed by the node of the issuer's market and receipted, so a backtest can show what it read and when. Nothing is restated and nothing is filled backwards: before the record existed the answer says before_record; in a market-year not yet sealed it says not_sealed and names the earliest sealed date. Served from the Replay store under Data Vintage (sealed market-years, 2021 forward); typed errors unknown_issuer, before_record, not_sealed, not_found; every answer carries the node signature (kid) and its RCO-10060 receipt (verify_receipt at https://mcp.rco-records.ai/mcp).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| as_of | Yes | ISO date, YYYY-MM-DD: the day the record is read as of. | |
| issuer | Yes | Ticker (with exchange where it helps: NASDAQ:AAPL, SHEL.L), ISIN or LEI. | |
| market | No | Optional two-letter market code; the owning node resolves it if absent. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the annotations (which already declare read-only, idempotent, closed-world, non-destructive), the description discloses substantial behavior: signed records with node signature (kid) and RCO-10060 receipt, source and read date on every field, the Replay store under Data Vintage covering sealed market-years from 2021 forward. It also enumerates the typed error outcomes and the precise fallback semantics (before_record, not_sealed naming the earliest sealed date), which no annotation or schema field conveys.
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 purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, and the remainder is information-dense rather than padded. The second half is a long run-on that packs vintage scope, error taxonomy, and receipt verification together, making it slightly harder to scan than it could be.
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 carries the full burden of describing the return value and does so: the signed record, per-field source and read date, sealed disclosure lines, error variants, and receipt verification path. An agent has enough to call it and interpret both success and failure answers.
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 as_of, issuer formats, and the optional market code. The description restates ticker/ISIN/LEI and the date but adds little syntactic meaning beyond the schema, 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?
The description states a specific verb and resource: it returns the issuer record as it stood on a given date, keyed by ticker, ISIN or LEI plus a date. It does not explicitly name the sibling that handles identifier resolution (resolve_issuer) or list_events_since, so the differentiation from alternatives is left implicit rather than stated.
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 context is implied rather than specified: 'so a backtest can show what it read and when' signals the historical/audit use case. There is no explicit when-not guidance or routing to resolve_issuer for unknown identifiers, leaving the agent to infer the boundary conditions from the typed-error list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Dated, URL'd disclosure events for an issuer since a date, served by the owning node's regional door.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| since | No | ||
| cursor | No | ||
| identifier | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety and idempotency profile is covered. The description adds only the routing note about the 'owning node's regional door', and says nothing about pagination, cursor behavior, or limits despite the cursor/limit parameters.
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 with no padding; the resource and scope come first. The density of undefined jargon like 'regional door' trades clarity for brevity but the structure itself is 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?
With 4 parameters at 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the description should at minimum specify date format, identifier type, and pagination via cursor/limit. None of these are present, leaving the agent under-informed for correct invocation.
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 carry parameter meaning, yet it only loosely maps to 'identifier' and 'since'. It never mentions the limit or cursor parameters, gives no date format, and does not clarify what kind of identifier (issuer ID, ticker, etc.) is expected.
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 (dated, URL'd disclosure events) and scopes it to an issuer since a date, which an agent can distinguish from get_record, list_aliases, list_nodes and resolve_issuer. The vague jargon 'owning node's regional door' muddies the delivery mechanism but does not obscure what is returned.
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?
There is no statement of when to use this tool versus siblings such as get_record or resolve_issuer, nor any prerequisite (e.g. resolving an issuer first) or exclusion. Usage must be inferred entirely from the name and title.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Every market node on the roster (nodes.json, region on each), which are live, their regional doors and Agent Cards.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds content-level context — that it reads nodes.json, flags which nodes are live, and includes regional doors and Agent Cards — but says nothing about size, ordering, or caching.
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 with no filler, front-loading the resource and then the payload. Some jargon ('regional doors') is left undefined, which costs a point.
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 carries the burden of describing returns; it does name the four content types an agent will receive. It stops short of framing the response shape (array? keyed by region?), leaving a modest gap for a no-param list 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 zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain; the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly implies no filtering inputs are needed.
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 the resource (market nodes) and enumerates the contents returned: roster entries from nodes.json, live status, regional doors, and Agent Cards. That distinguishes it from get_eco, get_signal, and resolve_issuer, though the verb is implied rather than stated ('Every market node on the roster...').
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?
No statement of when to call this versus the siblings (get_eco, get_signal, resolve_issuer), nor any preconditions. Usage is only inferable from the noun phrase itself.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Find a listed company by ticker, ISIN or LEI: the apex names the owning node and forwards to that node's regional door for the record summary.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| identifier | Yes | Ticker with or without exchange (SHOP, TSX:SHOP, SHEL.L, BHP.AX, D05.SI, NESN.SW, SAP.DE, 7203.T, 005930.KS), ISIN, LEI, an exact legal name or a sourced alias. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world behavior. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context — that the apex node resolves ownership and forwards to a regional node for the summary — but says nothing about failure modes (unknown identifier), latency, or what the summary contains.
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 sentence, front-loaded with the purpose before the routing detail, with no filler. The trailing architecture jargon ('apex names the owning node and forwards to that node's regional door') is dense and slightly obscures rather than clarifies.
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 and no annotations covering the return value, the description carries the burden of explaining results, yet only says 'the record summary' without defining it. For a single-parameter lookup the input side is well covered, but the output side and the internal routing metaphor remain under-specified.
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 parameter description already spells out ticker formats, ISIN, LEI, exact legal name and sourced alias. The description adds little beyond repeating 'ticker, ISIN or LEI', and in fact omits the legal-name and alias forms the schema supports, so it is baseline at best.
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 gives a concrete verb ('Find') and resource ('listed company') and enumerates the identifier kinds (ticker, ISIN, LEI), so an agent can tell what the tool does. However, it never contrasts itself with the nearby sibling get_record, even though it also mentions returning 'the record summary', leaving some ambiguity about which tool to pick.
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 implies the tool is for looking up a company from an identifier, but offers no explicit when-to-use guidance, no when-not-to-use, and no comparison to siblings like get_record or list_nodes. The agent must infer that resolution is the entry point to the record summary.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
get_as_oflist_events_sincelist_nodesresolve_issuerThe disclosures of an issuer in a date range, from the record: signed and receipted (RCO-10060).
The auditor of an issuer and every change on the record, dated: signed and receipted (RCO-10060).
The issuer behind a ticker: ISIN, LEI, listing and status, from the record: signed and receipted.
Dated motor-carrier records with receipts, verification, and specimens, from a records custodian.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.