AgentFiling

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description partially covers behavior by mentioning 'historical data and YoY growth', implying built-in calculations. However, it does not disclose rate limits, data freshness, authentication requirements, or whether it is read-only. The core read-only nature is clear, but details are missing.

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 concise, consisting of two sentences with no extraneous information. It effectively conveys the tool's purpose without redundancy.

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 3 parameters and no output schema, the description is somewhat complete. It lists return types (revenue, net income, etc.) but does not specify the data structure (e.g., whether results are per year, format of dates). An agent might need to infer output details from the concept parameter.

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%, so the description adds minimal value beyond the schema. It lists financial concepts (e.g., revenue, net_income) but the schema already enumerates them. The mention of 'YoY growth' is not in the schema and adds some context, but overall parameter meaning is adequately covered by the schema.

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 structured financial data from SEC XBRL filings and lists specific data points (revenue, net income, etc.). It implicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like get_insider_trades and get_material_events by focusing on earnings data, though it could explicitly state when to use this tool over others.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. An agent would need to infer usage from the tool name and context.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states the function without mentioning read-only nature, rate limits, or potential dependencies. The description does not go beyond the basic purpose.

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?

Described in two sentences with no unnecessary words or repetition. The key information (source, subject, and value for agents) is presented upfront.

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?

Lacks details about the output format or structure, which is important since no output schema exists. Also does not clarify parameter dependencies (e.g., need for ticker or cik). The description is too sparse given the tool's complexity.

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%, so the schema already explains the three parameters. The description does not add any additional meaning or usage context for the parameters, such as requiring at least one of ticker or cik.

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?

Clearly states it retrieves insider trading activity from SEC Form 4 filings, specifying the data source (SEC Form 4) and subject (executives/directors). The description effectively differentiates from sibling tools like get_earnings_data or get_recent_filings.

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?

Implies usage for insider trading signals but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool instead of siblings, such as get_earnings_data. No conditions or exclusions are mentioned.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It correctly identifies the tool as retrieval ('Get...'), but does not disclose rate limits, pagination, or authentication requirements. Behavior is adequately described but lacks depth.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with verb and noun, no wasted words. Efficiently communicates the tool's purpose.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description does not mention what the tool returns (e.g., list of events, fields). For a moderate-complexity tool, this omission reduces completeness. Sibling context is clear.

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%. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema parameters (cik, limit, ticker). With full schema coverage, baseline score 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description clearly states 'Get Form 8-K material event filings' with specific examples (M&A, CEO changes, earnings releases). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_earnings_data and get_insider_trades by targeting Form 8-K filings specifically.

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?

Description implies usage for material events requiring SEC disclosure but does not explicitly state when to use or when not. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer context.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It does not disclose behavioral traits such as authentication needs, rate limits, output format, or error handling. The description only states the basic function and filters.

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 concise at one sentence with relevant detail. It is front-loaded with the purpose and includes filter information. No redundant words, but could be slightly more structured.

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?

Without an output schema, the description should mention return value format or pagination, but it does not. It also lacks guidance on required parameters or how to use the tool effectively given no required parameters and sibling tools.

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 provides descriptions for all parameters. The description lists form types (already in schema) but adds no additional meaning or usage hints beyond the schema, meeting the baseline for high 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 clearly states it gets recent SEC EDGAR filings for any public company and lists specific form types, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_earnings_data or get_insider_trades.

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 general filings but does not explicitly state when to use this vs alternatives or any prerequisites like needing a ticker or CID. No exclusions or when-not guidance are provided.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.