List all available sectors with the number of tickers in each.
Use this when asked about sectors, industries, or to find which sector a type of company falls under. Returns 11 GICS sectors covering the S&P 500.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses output scope ('11 GICS sectors covering the S&P 500') and that each sector includes the number of tickers, which is meaningful behavioral context for a simple read-only list operation.
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 primary action first and the usage context immediately following. Every sentence adds value with 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?
For a parameterless list tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently covers what is returned, how many sectors, and the coverage universe. No critical behavioral or output details are missing.
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 has zero parameters, so no parameter documentation is needed; baseline 4 applies. The description adds context about what is returned rather than parameter details.
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 opens with 'List all available sectors', which is a specific verb and resource. It further distinguishes from siblings like get_sector_filings by emphasizing the sector list itself rather than filings.
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 gives explicit use cases ('asked about sectors, industries'), but also claims it helps 'find which sector a type of company falls under', which is misleading since this tool only lists sectors and cannot map a specific company to one. It does not mention get_company_info as a better alternative for company-specific sector lookups.
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.