filings_8k_events

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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and openWorld, but the description adds genuinely new operational context: x402 USDC-on-Base pricing, API-key bypass, and that an HTTP 402 is a price quote rather than a failure — a critical distinction an agent would otherwise misread as an error. It also notes each event carries every item with its official label. Minor gap: no rate limits or row-volume expectations beyond the schema's limit cap.

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?

Front-loaded with the actionable classification list, then a usage line, then the exclusion, then payment behavior — a sensible order with no filler sentences. The category enumeration is long but earns its place because it substitutes for a missing enum; the schema-pointer phrasing could be tightened.

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?

With six optional parameters and no output schema, the description needs to convey the response shape and it does at a high level ('each event lists every item with its official label'), plus it explains the payment/auth failure mode. It stops short of describing pagination/cursor semantics or the freshness of classified events, which is the main remaining gap for a data-feed tool.

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 baseline would be 3, but the description adds value the schema lacks: the full valid set of category values (the schema only says 'One of the category names above' and defines no enum). That enumeration materially improves the chance of a correct category filter. It adds nothing for days/since/wait/limit, which the schema already documents.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('8-K material-event alerts') and immediately scopes it as 'classified into categories an agent can act on', then enumerates the 15 categories. It also names the sibling it is not ('Not for all form types (use filings_search)'), so an agent can distinguish it without opening a schema.

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?

Explicit when-to-use ('Use when you want 8-K material events already classified') and an explicit exclusion with the redirect to filings_search. It adds a concrete call example (`?category=bankruptcy&days=7`) that shows the intended filtering pattern.

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