US SEC Filings Watch MCP

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden, yet it omits auth requirements (an access_token param exists), pagination behavior, and what the return shape looks like. It only discloses the 100-item cap, leaving the mutation-free read semantics and access constraints 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?

A single tight sentence with the key filtering capability front-loaded and no filler. The cryptic 'PRO.' fragment is the only wasted element.

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 4-parameter tool with no output schema, no annotations, and 25% schema coverage, the description leaves required-param behavior, auth, and return format unexplained. An agent cannot confidently call this correctly without guessing.

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 only 25%, so the description must compensate; it adds an example format for 'forms' and the implicit 100 cap on 'limit', which is genuinely useful. However, the required 'company' parameter and the access_token auth flow are left undocumented in both places.

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 and resource: retrieves recent filings for a company filtered by form types. The example ['8-K','10-Q'] makes the filtering intent concrete and distinguishes it from the sibling latest_filings, though the unexplained 'PRO' prefix adds noise rather than clarity.

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 indication of when to use this over latest_filings or red_flags, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. 'PRO' hints at a tier restriction but is never explained, so an agent gets no actionable routing 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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It does disclose two useful traits: the call is free and returns exactly 5 results. It says nothing about behavior for unknown tickers, whether 'etc.' forms are truly covered, or whether results include links.

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 with zero waste, and the highest-value qualifier ('FREE') is front-loaded before the scope details.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers input formats and result count adequately. Minor gaps remain around error handling and what each result contains, but the essentials for correct invocation are present.

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 0% for the single required 'company' parameter, so the description must carry semantics — and it does, stating that a ticker, company name, or CIK are all accepted. That is the key ambiguity for this parameter, though no format examples are given.

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 (retrieves) and resource (SEC filings) with explicit scope: the latest 5, covering named form types (10-K, 10-Q, 8-K, S-1). It stops short of distinguishing itself from the sibling filings_by_form, so an agent must infer that sibling's role from its name alone.

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: this is the go-to when the agent wants recent filings for a company regardless of form. No explicit when-not or pointer to filings_by_form / red_flags is given, leaving the routing decision to inference.

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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it discloses the company-count limit and the decoding behavior, which are genuine behavioral facts. However, it does not disclose that a subscriber/access token is required (only the 'PRO' prefix hints at it), nor return shape, empty-result behavior, or rate limits for a 25-company batch call.

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 compact sentences with the tier marker and the core action front-loaded, followed by the enumerated flag categories and the batch limit. No filler, though the enumerated category list could arguably be deferred to a return-value section.

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 3-parameter, no-annotation, no-output-schema tool, the description covers what the tool detects and the batch limit, which is the essential part. It does not cover authentication expectations or how many days back 'recent' means, both of which the agent would need to call this 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 only 33% — only access_token is documented in the schema. The description partially compensates by stating the 25-company cap for the companies array and implying recency for days, but it never defines the days window default or units, leaving the highest-value parameter underspecified.

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 specific verb pair (decode, flag) plus the resource (recent 8-K item numbers) and enumerates the exact red-flag categories detected, so the agent knows precisely what it returns. It does not explicitly name the sibling tools filings_by_form or latest_filings to distinguish itself, leaving differentiation implied 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 is implied: screening a batch of companies for bankruptcy, delisting, auditor change, restatement, or exec departures. The 'up to 25 companies' cap is a useful operational limit, but there is no statement of when to prefer this over latest_filings or filings_by_form, and no exclusions or prerequisites.

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