Detects restated annual figures across SEC filings for a ticker when values differ by more than 2%, returning both accession numbers; compares filed values only, not why they differ.
Annual figures a filer originally reported that a later filing reports differently by more than 2%, with both accession numbers; no account. It compares the two filed values only and does not say why they differ.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ticker | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does 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 >2% threshold, that both accession numbers are included, that only two filed values are compared, and that no explanation is provided. It still omits permissions, return structure, and pagination behavior, preventing a 5.
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?
Two sentences with no wasted words; the core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence and the comparison limitation follows immediately. The phrasing is slightly dense and lacks an explicit verb, but it remains appropriately sized.
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?
For a one-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the data scope and known limitations well. It does not document the required ticker parameter or return format, so some context an agent needs to call it confidently is missing.
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 has 0% description coverage for the only parameter, ticker, and the description never mentions the parameter at all. The schema's type and example give minimal meaning, but the description adds nothing to compensate for the coverage gap.
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 states a specific resource (annual figures recast by more than 2%) and output detail (both accession numbers), so an agent can tell what data the tool surfaces. However, it does not explicitly name or distinguish itself from any sibling tool such as check_figure_free or pit_changes, leaving the boundary to be inferred from the tool name.
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 explains what the tool returns but not when to use it instead of alternatives. There is no explicit guidance like 'use this when you need recasts only' or 'for explanations, use X instead,' so the agent must infer usage from the purpose statement.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.