Get recent SEC filings for all companies in a given sector.
Sector names are case-insensitive, e.g. "Technology", "Energy",
"Healthcare". Use list_sectors first if unsure of exact names.
Optionally filter by event_type (earnings_release, acquisition,
executive_change, restructuring, dividend, guidance_update).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sector | Yes | ||
| event_type | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral context. It discloses case-insensitive sector matching and lists valid event_type values, which adds useful behavioral detail. However, it doesn't define 'recent' (time window), mention pagination, or describe the output format, leaving some ambiguity for an agent.
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 concise, with four short sentences each adding distinct value: purpose, case-insensitivity, prerequisite usage, and optional filter. No wasted words or 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?
For a simple two-parameter tool with no output schema or annotations, the description covers purpose, parameter semantics, and usage prerequisite. The main gap is the unspecified 'recent' time frame and lack of return format details, but overall it is reasonably 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 0%, but the description fully explains both parameters: sector with case-insensitive examples and guidance to use list_sectors, and event_type with a comprehensive list of allowed values. This adds meaning well beyond the bare schema types.
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 gets recent SEC filings for all companies in a given sector, with a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_filings (likely company-specific), search_filings (search-based), and list_sectors (sector listing).
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?
It advises using list_sectors first if unsure of sector names, providing a clear prerequisite. It doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives like get_filings for individual companies, but the scope is clearly sector-based, making the usage context clear.
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.