delete_uploaded_documentDelete an uploaded document before its 24h TTL. Deleting a missing/already-expired/foreign id returns deleted:false rather than an error.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| upload_id | Yes | The upload_id returned by POST /v1/uploads. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| _meta | Yes | Provenance envelope — data lineage for every MCP response | |
| deleted | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds value beyond annotations by explaining the idempotent behavior (returning false for missing/expired documents instead of error) and the TTL constraint. Annotations already indicate destructive and idempotent, but the description elaborates on the specific failure mode.
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 sentences are highly efficient, conveying the core action, constraint, and edge case behavior without redundancy or filler. Every sentence earns its place.
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 simple parameter set, annotations, and existence of an output schema, the description covers the key behavioral aspects (TTL, idempotency) sufficiently. Minor gap: no mention of authorization or irreversibility, but destructive hint covers safety.
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% and the schema already describes the upload_id parameter. The description does not add additional semantics for the parameter beyond the TTL context, which is about the document rather than the parameter itself. Baseline 3 applies.
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 action (delete) and resource (uploaded document) with a specific constraint (before 24h TTL). It distinguishes itself from sibling delete tools by specifying the resource type and the TTL 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 implies usage for documents within their TTL but does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use this tool or compare it to alternatives like delete_report. The edge case behavior is noted but not the decision criteria.
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 has a distinct purpose with detailed descriptions that clarify differences. Overlaps like get_peer_comparables vs screen_universe are well-differentiated by scope (single company vs cross-sectional). Similarly, get_insider_sentiment vs get_smart_money_flow are clearly distinguished by data sources and methodology.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (e.g., create_report, get_financial_ratios, delete_alert). No mixing of conventions or inconsistent verbs.
With 69 tools, the count far exceeds the 25+ threshold for 'too many'. While the domain is broad, the sheer volume likely overwhelms agents and increases selection complexity.
The tool set covers a wide range of SEC filings, ratios, smart-money data, alerts, reports, and more. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no options or detailed debt data), but most analyst workflows are supported.