get_filingsRecent SEC filings for a ticker (10-K/10-Q/8-K) with filing/report dates and document links.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| form | No | Optional form filter, e.g. '10-K', '10-Q', '8-K'. | |
| limit | No | Number of filings to return, 1-100 (default 20). | |
| ticker | Yes | US stock ticker, e.g. 'AAPL'. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and open world behavior. The description adds that the output includes filing/report dates and document links, but does not detail other behaviors (e.g., pagination, rate limiting). It adds some value beyond annotations.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. Every part contributes to understanding the tool's core function.
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 tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description provides adequate context about the response content. However, it lacks details on the recency or ordering of filings (e.g., defaults to last 20).
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 100%, providing clear parameter definitions. The tool description adds no additional parameter information, so it meets the baseline expectation.
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 retrieves recent SEC filings for a ticker, mentioning common form types and response contents (dates and links). It distinguishes the tool's purpose but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_fundamentals, get_insider). The description lacks when/when-not and alternative recommendations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.