Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• sec_edgar_list_filingsA
  4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that results include links to the primary document and implies read-only behavior with 'Lists', but does not disclose potential limper or access restrictions. Since the tool is a simple read, this is adequate but not rich.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is two sentences with zero redundant content. It leads with the action, includes a concrete example, and conveys both purpose and the key optional parameter behavior efficiently.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness4/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  For a low-complexity tool with a full output schema and complete parameter descriptions, the description adequately covers purpose, usage, and return characteristics. It does not mention edge cases like invalid tickers, but such details are not necessary for a simple listing function.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  The schema provides descriptions for all three parameters, so the description does not need to add much. It does offer an example for form_type ('10-K', '10-Q') which slightly reinforces the schema's meaning, but adds no new semantics beyond what the schema already states.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Lists a company's most recent SEC filings with links to the primary document.' This uses a specific verb ('Lists') and a distinct resource ('company's most recent SEC filings'), which differentiates it from sibling tools like get_company_profile or get_concept_series.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines4/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description gives clear context for when to use the tool (to retrieve recent filings) and explains how to narrow results with form_type. It does not explicitly exclude alternative uses or name sibling alternatives, but the siblings address different data, so the guidance is sufficient.

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

• sec_edgar_get_company_profileA
  4.3/5.0
  Behavior3/5

  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 of behavioral disclosure. It clearly explains the core lookup behavior and adds usage ordering, but it does not mention error behavior (e.g., invalid ticker), rate limits, or explicitly confirm it is read-only. This is a moderate level of transparency for a simple lookup tool.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is two sentences long. The first sentence front-loads the action and outputs, and the second sentence gives a crucial usage guideline. Every word is purposeful, with no redundancy or filler.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness5/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given that this tool has only one parameter, an output schema, and sibling tools that depend on its output, the description is complete. It states what the tool does, what it returns, and when to use it, which is sufficient for an agent to call it correctly without needing further details.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  The input schema already provides a clear description for 'ticker' ('Stock ticker symbol, e.g. AAPL') with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the ticker's role but does not add significant new semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description uses the specific verb 'resolves' and clearly states the resource ('ticker symbol' to 'company's SEC identity'), listing concrete outputs such as CIK and registrant name. It also differentiates from sibling tools by positioning this as the entry point tool, making its purpose unmistakable.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines5/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description explicitly says 'Usually the first tool to call, since the other tools key off the company.' This gives clear when-to-use guidance and explains why it should be called before the sibling tools, which is excellent contextual direction.

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

• sec_edgar_get_concept_seriesA
  4.5/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses an important behavioral trait: aliases merge US-GAAP tags to avoid silent history truncation. It also explains that if nothing is found, the error message guides the user. This is meaningful beyond the schema, though it does not explicitly state read-only behavior or other safety aspects, hence a 4.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness4/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is organized into three short paragraphs, each with a clear purpose: what it does, when to use it, and how aliases work. Every sentence adds value, but it is slightly verbose with the alias list and explanation; still, it remains appropriately sized for the complexity.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness5/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given the tool's complexity (4 params, output schema exists), the description covers all essential context: purpose, usage context, alias details, and error handling. It does not need to describe return values because an output schema is present. The guidance on error recovery is especially helpful, making the description complete for an agent.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters5/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  The schema already covers 100% of parameters, so the baseline is 3, but the description greatly enhances the concept parameter by listing all valid aliases, explaining the merging behavior, and noting that raw US-GAAP tags are also accepted. This goes well beyond the schema's minimal description and gives the agent concrete, usable knowledge.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Returns the reported time series for one financial concept' and gives concrete examples (revenue, net income, total assets). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like list_available_concepts (which lists concepts) and get_company_profile (which returns company info).

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines4/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description states 'Use this for trend and ratio analysis,' providing a clear use case. It also instructs that using aliases is the most reliable approach, which is practical guidance. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or point to alternatives like list_available_concepts for discovering concepts, so it falls short of a full 5.

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

• sec_edgar_list_available_conceptsA
  4.5/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries full disclosure burden. It reveals ordering by data point count, case-insensitive substring search on tag and label, and that results are limited to what the company actually reports. It doesn't cover error cases or rate limits, but for a read-only list tool this is strong behavioral context.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  Four dense, purposeful sentences, each adding new information: purpose, usage guidance, search behavior, and ordering. No fluff or redundancy.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness5/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given an output schema exists (so return values are already documented), the description covers purpose, usage, search, and ordering. It is fully self-sufficient for an agent to decide when and how to invoke the tool, with no obvious gaps.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  The schema already provides 100% description coverage for all three parameters. The description adds a useful detail about search being case-insensitive, but otherwise relies on the schema's parameter descriptions, matching the baseline for high schema coverage.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the tool 'Lists the US-GAAP tags a company actually reports to the SEC.' This is a specific verb-resource pair and distinguishes the tool from siblings like sec_edgar_list_filings and sec_edgar_get_concept_series by focusing on available concepts.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines5/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  Explicitly instructs when to use: 'Call this when sec_edgar_get_concept_series cannot find a concept.' It also explains how the output integrates with that sibling tool, leaving no ambiguity about alternatives.

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