sec_8k_detailLook up a single 8-K filing by accession number. Returns full triage row including all Item codes, descriptions, severity, and (if enriched) the LLM-extracted summary. Use after sec_8k_recent / _today / _by_item to get the full structured record for a specific filing.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| accession_number | Yes | SEC accession number like "0001234567-26-001234". |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare the tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds behavioral context by specifying the output content ('full triage row including all Item codes, descriptions, severity, and... LLM-extracted summary') and noting the 'if enriched' conditional. This is useful context beyond the annotations, though it doesn't address error behavior or other edge cases.
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, front-loaded with the primary action, then return details, then usage guidance. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or fluff.
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 (single parameter, no output schema) and strong annotations, the description fully covers what the tool does, what it returns, and how it fits into the workflow with sibling tools. Nothing critical is 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?
Schema coverage is 100% with a clear description of the accession_number parameter, so the schema carries the parameter documentation burden. The description only mentions 'by accession number' without adding format or syntax details beyond the schema. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.
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 uses a specific verb ('Look up') and clearly identifies the resource ('a single 8-K filing by accession number'). It explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on single-filing lookup and mentions the full triage row return, making its purpose unambiguous.
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?
Provides explicit usage guidance: 'Use after sec_8k_recent / _today / _by_item to get the full structured record for a specific filing.' This names the sibling tools and states the intended sequencing, clearly indicating when this tool should be used versus alternatives.
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 have clearly distinct purposes, but there is some overlap among similarly named tools like ask_pipeworx, deep_research, and bet_research, which could cause misselection. However, detailed descriptions help differentiate them.
Tool names follow a mix of patterns (verb_noun, noun_noun, etc.) and use different prefixes (polymarket_, sec_8k_, pipeworx_), which is somewhat inconsistent but still readable and descriptive overall.
34 tools is on the higher side, with several tools dedicated to specific subdomains (e.g., 6 Polymarket-related, 4 SEC 8-K tools). While each has a distinct role, the number feels slightly bloated for a single server.
The tool surface covers a broad range of data research and monitoring tasks, including filings, entity profiles, claims, and prediction markets. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no data writing tools), but core workflows are well-supported.