Recent 8-K material event filings for a company, with classified event types ('material_acquisition', 'executive_change', 'auditor_change', 'results_of_operations', etc.). Use this when the user asks 'has anything material happened with '.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cik | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| since | No | Only return 8-Ks filed on or after this ISO date (YYYY-MM-DD). Default = last 90 days. | |
| ticker | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool returns 'Recent' filings and mentions event type classification but does not disclose defaults (e.g., 90-day window from since parameter), error behavior, or any side effects. It is minimally adequate.
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: the first describes the tool's output and event types, the second gives usage guidance. Every sentence serves a purpose, no 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?
The tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description covers purpose and usage but omits parameter semantics and return format details. For a tool that returns structured data, the agent lacks guidance on interpreting results.
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 25% (only 'since' has a description). The description adds no parameter-level details; it does not clarify what 'cik' or 'ticker' represent or how 'limit' behaves. Despite low coverage, the description fails to compensate.
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 the tool returns 'Recent 8-K material event filings for a company' with classified event types, giving specific examples like 'material_acquisition', 'executive_change'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like edgar_get_facts or edgar_read_filing.
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 says 'Use this when the user asks "has anything material happened with <company>"', providing clear context for when to use the tool. It does not mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but the sibling set covers other needed tools.
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.