snacs_checkpoints_getAuthoritative point-in-time share-count checkpoints (from SEC filings) for a forensically covered ticker, newest first.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max checkpoints to return, newest first (up to 500). | |
| ticker | Yes | U.S. ticker symbol, e.g. GPUS. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true. The description adds valuable behavioral details: the source (SEC filings), newest-first ordering, and the 'forensically covered' prerequisite. It does not contradict 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 entire description is a single, front-loaded sentence with zero redundant words. Every element (authoritative, point-in-time, from SEC filings, newest first) earns its place.
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?
With a simple 2-parameter schema and an output schema present, the description adequately covers the source, ordering, and coverage constraint. No additional behavior or return details are necessary.
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% for both parameters. The description adds a meaningful constraint on the ticker parameter by stating it must be 'forensically covered,' which is not explicitly in the schema. This enriches the parameter semantics.
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 a specific resource (share-count checkpoints), source (SEC filings), and ordering (newest first). It distinguishes from sibling tools by the unique 'checkpoints' resource type, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.
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 forensically covered tickers and point-in-time share-count data, providing clear context. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the scope is well-defined so an agent can infer appropriate use.
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.