edgar-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool extracts data and returns JSON, but lacks critical details such as authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or whether it performs destructive operations. For a tool with 6 parameters and no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap 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 highly concise and front-loaded, using only two sentences that directly state the tool's purpose and output. Every word earns its place, with no redundant or vague phrasing, making it efficient for an agent to parse quickly.

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 tool's complexity (6 parameters, no annotations) and the presence of an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the core purpose and output format, but lacks behavioral context and usage guidelines. The output schema likely details the JSON structure, reducing the need for return value explanation, but overall completeness is limited.

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 description adds no parameter-specific information beyond implying financial data extraction. With 0% schema description coverage and 6 parameters (including enums for 'source' and 'output'), the schema alone documents the parameters. The description doesn't compensate for the coverage gap, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema handles parameter documentation.

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 specific action ('Extract all financial facts from SEC filings') and resource ('SEC filings'), distinguishing it from siblings like get_filings or get_filing_sections by focusing on financial data extraction rather than document retrieval. It also specifies the structured output format, which further clarifies its unique purpose.

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 like get_metric or search_metrics. It mentions the data source (SEC filings) but doesn't specify prerequisites, exclusions, or comparative contexts with sibling tools, leaving the agent to infer usage scenarios.

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