extract_sec_filings

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

Annotations indicate read-only and open-world hints, which the description aligns with by mentioning 'Free, no auth, real-time.' It adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: the tool fetches legally mandated disclosures filed within 4 business days and uses the SEC EDGAR API. No contradictions with annotations are present, and the description enhances understanding of the tool's operational constraints and data source.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by additional context and unique selling points. Each sentence adds value: defining 8-K filings, explaining input types, and highlighting uniqueness. There is no wasted text, making it efficient and well-structured for quick comprehension.

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 (fetching legal filings with real-time data), annotations cover safety aspects, and the description adds context on data source and constraints. However, without an output schema, the description does not detail return values or format, which could be helpful for an agent. It compensates well with input guidance and behavioral transparency but leaves output expectations implicit.

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 description coverage is 50%, with the 'url' parameter documented in the schema but 'max_length' lacking a description. The description adds meaning by explaining that the 'url' parameter accepts 'company name, ticker, or keyword' and provides examples, which clarifies its semantics beyond the schema. However, it does not address the 'max_length' parameter, leaving a gap in parameter understanding.

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 ('Fetch SEC 8-K filings'), the resource ('for any public company'), and the source ('from the SEC EDGAR full-text search API'). It distinguishes this tool from siblings by explicitly stating 'Unique: not available in any other MCP server,' which highlights its distinctiveness among the extraction-focused sibling 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?

The description provides clear context for when to use this tool: for fetching SEC 8-K filings related to material corporate events, with examples of input types ('company name, ticker, or keyword'). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives among the sibling tools, such as which other extraction tools might be more appropriate for different data types.

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