veroq_filings

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden. It mentions that results include links to SEC EDGAR and costs 2 credits, but does not disclose read-only nature, rate limits, or authentication requirements. The information is helpful but not comprehensive.

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, well-structured with clear sections (WHEN TO USE, RETURNS, COST, EXAMPLE), and front-loaded with the most important information. 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description covers expected return fields and cost. It is complete for typical use cases, though it omits error handling or edge cases. The information is sufficient.

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% (single parameter ticker). The description adds value by providing an example ('TSLA') and context that the ticker is for a stock. This exceeds the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 retrieves recent SEC filings for a stock, listing specific form types (10-K, 10-Q, 8-K) and providing an example. It effectively communicates the core function and distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying 'recent' and linking to EDGAR.

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 includes a 'WHEN TO USE' section explicitly stating contexts like regulatory filing history and due diligence. However, it does not mention when not to use or compare with similar sibling tools (e.g., veroq_edgar_filings), so it lacks exclusions.

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