SEC Filings & Earnings

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does not mention read-only nature, rate limits, authentication, or any potential side effects. The description only states what is returned, not how or under what conditions.

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 with two focused sentences that front-load the main action and key outputs. Every word adds value.

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?

The description lists returned fields and mentions historical data and YoY growth, but lacks details on data structure (e.g., period granularity, number of years). Given no output schema, a bit more completeness would be helpful for an agent to understand the return format.

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 parameters are already documented. The description lists some concept values but does not add meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 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?

The description clearly states it retrieves structured financial data from SEC XBRL filings and lists specific metrics (revenue, net income, EPS, assets) with historical data and YoY growth, distinguishing it from sibling tools focused on FDA data, insider trades, etc.

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 use for financial data needs but does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance or mention alternatives. The sibling tool names are sufficiently different, so context is clear.

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 the full burden. It mentions the source (openFDA) implying public data, but does not disclose rate limits, authentication needs, whether it is read-only, or any side effects. The behavioral disclosure is minimal.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose, no extraneous information. Efficient and to the point.

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 tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description covers inputs adequately but omits output format, pagination, or error behavior. It is adequate but could be improved for an agent to fully anticipate 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by giving example drug names ('aspirin, Tylenol') and the data scope (17k+ recalls, 20M+ events), which enriches understanding beyond schema descriptions.

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 retrieves FDA drug recalls and adverse event reports from openFDA, specifying the resource and search options (drug name or company). The sibling tools are all financial/insider trading, so this tool is well-distinguished.

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 use for FDA-related queries, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it provide when-not situations or prerequisites. The distinction from siblings is domain-based but not explicit.

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 provided, so description carries full burden. It transparently states the data source (SEC Form 4) and the actors (executives, directors), but does not disclose potential rate limits or data latency. Still adequate for a read-only tool.

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 focused sentences: first states purpose and source, second adds value proposition. No extraneous text.

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, so description should hint at return fields (e.g., transaction type, shares, price). Missing this context. However, sibling tools are similar financial data tools, so overall context is reasonable.

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 parameters are already documented. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides for 'cik', 'limit', and 'ticker'.

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 the tool retrieves insider trading activity from SEC Form 4 filings and identifies it as a key alpha signal. This verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_earnings_data or get_fda_data.

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 use when insider trading data is needed, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use compared to siblings. However, the context of sibling tools (earnings, FDA, filings) makes the tool's purpose clear.

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 disclose behavior. It describes what the tool retrieves but does not mention rate limits, pagination, or response format, leaving gaps in transparency.

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, efficient sentence with relevant examples, earning its place without 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?

No output schema exists, and the description lacks details on behavior or parameter usage. While sufficient for a simple listing tool, it could be more complete.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds context about the types of events but does not enhance understanding of parameters beyond what the schema provides.

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 'Get Form 8-K material event filings', specifying the verb and resource, and provides concrete examples like M&A announcements and CEO changes, distinguishing it from siblings such as get_earnings_data and get_fda_data.

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 SEC material events but offers no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention when not to use it.

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 cover behavioral aspects. It only states it 'gets' filings, leaving out details like authentication, rate limits, pagination, or that it's a read-only operation. The description is too minimal for a tool with no annotations.

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 sentence that conveys the core purpose and key features. No unnecessary words, and it is front-loaded with the main function.

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 no output schema and simple parameters, the description is adequate but could be improved by explaining what 'recent' means and the expected return format. It does not cover all possible informational needs for an agent.

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 marginal value. It reinforces the form type examples (e.g., 10-K, 10-Q) but does not explain parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 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?

The description clearly states it gets recent SEC EDGAR filings for any public company and mentions filtering by form type. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_insider_trades or get_earnings_data.

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 it's for retrieving filings, but does not explicitly guide when to use it vs. alternatives like get_insider_trades or get_material_events. No when-not guidance is provided.

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