Search newest-first SEC filings after terminal summary processing.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cik | No | ||
| form | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| query | No | ||
| cursor | No | ||
| ticker | No | ||
| to_date | No | ||
| from_date | No | ||
| summary_status | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | No | ||
| meta | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the 'newest-first' ordering and 'after terminal summary processing' sequencing context, which is beyond the annotations. However, it does not disclose pagination semantics (cursor), date-range behavior, or what summary_status values do. With four strong annotations present, credit is given for the ordering/sequencing context, but it is thin.
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 very short (one clause), which is concise, but it packs in a confusing phrase ('after terminal summary processing') without explanation. It is under-specified more than efficiently concise — a single sentence that burdens the reader to decipher ambiguous terminology.
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?
This is a moderately complex search tool with 9 parameters, an output schema, and a summary_status filter. The description doesn't explain the filter semantics, pagination via cursor, or the relationship to get_sec_filing. Even with the output schema present, critical usage semantics (which statuses exist, how filtering works) are unexplained.
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 adds zero parameter-level meaning. With 9 parameters, including a summary_status enum, a cursor for pagination, date ranges, and search fields, the description explains none of them. The baseline would be 3 if coverage were high, but with 0% coverage the description must compensate and does not at all.
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 'Search newest-first SEC filings after terminal summary processing,' which names the resource (SEC filings) and the ordering (newest-first) with a specific action verb. However, it does not distinguish from sibling get_sec_filing, which retrieves filings, and the phrase 'after terminal summary processing' is ambiguous without context.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus get_sec_filing or search_lenders among siblings. It implies search use-case (query-based discovery) but gives no exclusions or alternatives. The 'after terminal summary processing' clue hints at a workflow context but is too vague to be actionable.
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.
Most tools target clearly distinct data domains: lender search/profile/compare cluster around HMDA lender analytics, while market snapshot, loan performance, servicer analytics, and SEC filing tools are separate. The only minor ambiguity is between get_lender_profile, compare_lenders, and search_lenders which all deal with lender keys, though their intents (search vs. profile vs. comparison) are distinct.
Tools follow a consistent get_/search_/compare_ verb pattern with clear noun targets (lenders, market_snapshot, loan_performance, sec_filing). The one deviation is that search_lenders, search_sec_filings, and compare_lenders use non-get verbs while the rest use get_, but this is a sensible pattern matching read vs. search semantics.
At 9 tools, this is well within the ideal 3-15 range and each tool appears to represent a meaningful consumer capability for a mortgage analytics domain. The count feels appropriately scoped without redundancy or bloat.
The surface covers market data, SEC filings, lender profiles, loan performance, and servicer analytics, but there are notable gaps: there's no mutation capability (all read-oriented), no way to combine or join across these domains, and no search tool for loan performance or market data topics - those are limited to pre-bounded topics. Some domains feel like they have single query points rather than full browsing coverage.
