edgar_monitor

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

Discloses that feed is updated every few minutes, returns latest filings, and limit has maximum of 100. With no annotations, this provides sufficient behavioral insight for a non-destructive monitoring tool.

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?

Extremely concise with a clear structure: one-line purpose, update frequency, then bulleted examples. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 simple monitoring tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers key aspects (filtering, limit, update cadence). Lacks explicit return format, but examples imply list of filings; sufficient for this complexity.

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 coverage is 100%, so description adds marginal value beyond schema. Examples show valid form values and default/max for limit, but does not provide new semantic information beyond what schema already includes.

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 returns latest SEC filings from today's live feed, using specific verbs (see, returns). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on real-time monitoring rather than historical search or company-specific tools.

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?

Provides clear usage guidance with examples for common scenarios (all filings, 8-Ks, insider trades, etc.). Lacks explicit when-not-to-use or comparisons with sibling tools, but the context strongly implies its purpose.

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