Get sector, industry, and data coverage info for a company.
Returns the company's GICS sector and industry classification, plus counts of available filings and transcripts.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ticker | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It clearly states what data is returned (GICS sector/industry, counts of filings/transcripts), which is meaningful for an agent estimating impact. It does not cover error cases or data sources, but that is acceptable for a simple read-only getter.
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 description is two sentences with the primary purpose front-loaded. No filler or redundant words; every sentence contributes meaningful specification of the tool's output.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description provides a sufficient overview of the returned data. It could mention return format or edge cases, but the core functionality is well covered for an agent deciding whether to invoke it.
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%, and the description does not explain the 'ticker' parameter beyond what the schema already states. The parameter is a single, self-evident stock symbol, so it is not a severe gap, but the description adds no value in clarifying format or constraints.
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 the specific verb 'Get' and resource 'company info' with concrete coverage: sector, industry, and data coverage. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_filings or get_transcript by focusing on company-level metadata and counts.
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 this tool is for retrieving company classification and filing/transcript counts, but it gives no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives or any context boundaries. No exclusionary language or sibling comparisons are present.
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 aspect of SEC filings (company info, filings list, detail, guidance, sector, signals, transcripts, search, earnings calendar, sector listing). No two tools have overlapping purposes.
Most tools follow a 'get_<noun>' pattern (e.g., get_filings, get_guidance), but list_sectors and search_filings deviate. The naming is still clear and intuitive.
10 tools is well-scoped for a filing API—covers all major retrieval needs without redundancy or excess.
The tool surface covers the full lifecycle of filing retrieval: discovery (search, sector, calendar), listing, detail, and specialized extraction (guidance, signals, transcripts). No obvious gaps for the domain.