get_companyWhich value investors hold a company, how their holdings changed, its directors' recent share purchases and sales (Form 4), and basic SEC company facts.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | Company slug from search, usually the lower-case ticker, e.g. 'ko' |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the scope of data returned (holdings deltas, Form 4 activity, SEC facts), but says nothing about time windows ('how their holdings changed' over what period, how 'recent' is defined), result size, or coverage limits.
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?
One compact sentence with no filler, and the primary payload (ownership) is front-loaded before insider filings and company facts. It is a noun-phrase fragment rather than a structured sentence, but nothing in it is wasted.
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 read-only, single-parameter lookup with no output schema, the description covers the main content categories reasonably well. However, temporal scope for 'how their holdings changed' and 'recent' share purchases is undefined, and an agent cannot tell how much data to expect or how the sections are combined in the response.
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?
There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, including a concrete example ('ko'), so the schema carries the semantics. The description adds no extra meaning about the slug or about resolving it from search, leaving this at the baseline.
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 names concrete content domains: value-investor holders, how holdings changed, directors' Form 4 purchases/sales, and basic SEC company facts, which is far more specific than the bare name 'get_company'. It lacks an explicit verb and never distinguishes itself from overlapping siblings like get_manager or insider_buying, so it stops short of a 5.
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?
Usage is only implied: by enumerating ownership, insider activity, and company facts, it signals 'use this for a company-level overview.' There is no explicit when-to-use, no exclusions, and no routing guidance against get_manager, insider_buying, or latest_filings, which cover adjacent ground.
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.