OMENZ agent tools

event_check

Event Check: did a US public company actually FILE this news, or is it just going around? Give a ticker or name and the claim (CEO resigned, acquisition, results, bankruptcy, restatement, cyber incident, layoffs...). We map it to the required SEC 8-K item, pull the company's recent filings from EDGAR, and quote the sentence that states it. FILED only when one sentence carries the claim's names and roles; otherwise FILED_RELATED, NO_FILING_YET (4-business-day filing window), NOT_A_FILING_EVENT or NOT_FOUND. Deterministic. By OMENZ. (MCP calls run in AYNE, the free playzone; production: GET https://www.omenz.org/api/tollbooth/v1/event-check, $0.005 via x402.)

Tool call template

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": {
      "company": "<company>",
      "claim": "<claim>"
    },
    "name": "event_check"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`days`	No	lookback window, 1-365 (default 30)
`claim`	Yes
`company`	Yes	ticker or company name

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 14, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does well: it discloses the data source (EDGAR), the decision rule ('FILED only when one sentence carries the claim's names and roles'), the full status vocabulary, and the 4-business-day filing window. It does not address access requirements, rate limits, or determinism caveats beyond the word 'deterministic'.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The core is front-loaded in one dense paragraph: question, inputs, method, status vocabulary. The trailing parenthetical about AYNE playzone and the x402 pricing endpoint adds commercial context that partially earns its place but reads as promotional rather than operational.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 3-parameter, no-output-schema lookup tool, the description explains inputs, method, decision logic, and all return statuses, which is nearly everything an agent needs. Minor gaps remain around output shape beyond the quoted sentence and behavior on ambiguous or non-US-listed companies.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 67%, with `days` already self-documented. The description adds real meaning for `company` (ticker or company name) and especially `claim`, enumerating the kinds of claims that map to required 8-K items, which the bare string schema does not convey.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a precise verb and resource: verify whether a US public company actually filed a news claim with the SEC, mapping it to an 8-K item and quoting the supporting sentence. The purpose is unmistakably specific and unlikely to be confused with siblings, but the description never names or contrasts an alternative (e.g. claim_evidence), leaving differentiation implicit.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description tells the agent exactly what to supply ('a ticker or name and the claim') and gives concrete claim categories (CEO resigned, acquisition, results, bankruptcy, restatement, cyber incident, layoffs). It lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or a named alternative for adjacent tasks, so it stops short of the top band.

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

All OMENZ agent tools tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?