What an SEC form in the ledger means and which event the ledger records for it.
Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {
"form": "<form>"
},
"name": "explain_form"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| form | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies an explanatory read operation and mentions the return content indirectly, but it does not state side effects, permissions, determinism, or error behavior.
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 wasted words. For a simple one-parameter explanatory lookup, this is appropriately sized.
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 lookup tool, the description conveys the core purpose and hints at the return content: form meaning plus recorded ledger event. However, it omits usage guidance and does not compensate for the lack of an output schema or parameter descriptions.
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%, so the description should add meaning for the single 'form' parameter. It links the parameter to 'SEC form' conceptually, but it does not explain any enum values or clarify how the form string is interpreted.
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 a specific resource, SEC forms, and the two things it explains: the form's meaning and the ledger event recorded for it. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings such as search_filings or list_offerings, but the explanatory purpose is clear.
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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus search_filings, list_offerings, or other siblings. Usage is only weakly implied by the phrase 'what an SEC form means,' with no exclusions or alternative routing.
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.