edgar_proxy

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It discloses the kind of data extracted (tables, metrics, governance data) but does not mention that the tool is read-only, any required permissions, rate limits, or response format. The examples suggest it retrieves static data, but this is implicit.

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 concise, with a clear purpose statement followed by practical examples. Every sentence serves a purpose: the first defines the domain, the second lists extracted items, and examples show parameter usage. No redundant or irrelevant content.

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 has two parameters (both well-documented in schema) and no output schema, the description adequately covers the input. However, it could be more complete by describing the output format or indicating if it returns structured data or raw text. The examples give hints but not a full specification.

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 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying the 'filing_index' parameter with '0=latest, 1=previous' in examples, which is not in the schema description. It also demonstrates usage patterns for 'identifier' with tickers like AAPL and MSFT.

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 is for CEO compensation, executive pay, and corporate governance questions, with specific actions like extracting compensation tables and pay-vs-performance metrics. This distinguishes it from siblings like 'edgar_monitor' or 'edgar_company' by focusing exclusively on proxy statements.

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 tells when to use the tool (compensation and governance questions) and provides concrete examples for CEO pay and compare pay. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools for other SEC filings.

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