edgar-mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it mentions the tool's purpose in the workflow, it doesn't describe key behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, what authentication is required, rate limits, pagination behavior (despite having a 'limit' parameter), or what the output looks like. The description is insufficient for a tool with 8 parameters and no annotation coverage.

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, well-structured sentence that efficiently communicates the tool's purpose and usage context. Every word earns its place, with no redundant information or unnecessary elaboration. It's appropriately sized for a list operation tool.

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?

While the description clearly explains the tool's purpose and relationship to 'get_metric', it lacks crucial information about parameters and behavioral traits. The presence of an output schema helps somewhat, but for a tool with 8 parameters (3 required) and no annotations, the description should provide more context about how to use the tool effectively. It's minimally adequate but has significant gaps.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage for 8 parameters, the description provides no information about any parameters. It doesn't explain what 'ticker', 'year', 'quarter', 'full_year_mode', 'source', 'date_type', 'limit', or 'include_values' mean or how they affect the listing. The description fails to compensate for the complete lack of parameter documentation in the schema.

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 ('List available metric tags') and resource ('for a filing period'), and explicitly distinguishes it from its sibling tool 'get_metric' by explaining its preparatory role. It provides a concrete verb+resource combination with clear sibling differentiation.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('so an agent can choose an exact metric_name before calling get_metric') and names the alternative tool ('get_metric'). This provides clear guidance on the tool's purpose in the workflow and distinguishes it from other sibling tools like 'search_metrics' or 'get_financials'.

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