Stay up to date with the most recent SEC filings related to institutional ownership using the Institutional Ownership Filings API. This tool allows you to track the latest reports and disclosures from institutional investors, giving you a real-time view of major holdings and regulatory submissions.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | Page number (default: 0) | |
| limit | No | Limit on number of results (default: 100, max: 100) |
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 full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'real-time view' but does not explain pagination behavior, authorization requirements, response structure, or any limitations. No contradiction with annotations since none exist.
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 two sentences and reasonably concise. However, the second sentence largely repeats the first ('track the latest reports and disclosures' is similar to 'latest SEC filings related to institutional ownership'), adding little value. It is still concise and front-loaded.
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 absence of an output schema and annotations, the description should provide more context about return values, pagination, and use cases. It does not explain what fields are returned, how page/limit affect results, or how this differs from related filing tools. The tool is simple, but the description is still incomplete for an agent to select it confidently.
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?
The input schema already provides 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters (page and limit) including defaults. The description adds no additional context or semantics beyond what the schema offers, so the baseline of 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 the tool retrieves the most recent SEC filings related to institutional ownership, using a specific verb (track/get) and resource (institutional ownership filings). It differentiates from sibling tools like getFilingsBySymbol or getLatest8KFilings by focusing specifically on institutional ownership 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?
The description implies use when tracking latest institutional ownership filings but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives. It lacks exclusions or comparison with other filing-related tools, so guidance is only implied, not explicit.
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.