finnhub_sec_filings

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

With no annotations provided, the description must convey behavioral traits, but it only lists operation names. It doesn't disclose that the 'operation' parameter is a selector, that parameters vary by operation, that the tool is read-only, or any rate limits/authentication requirements. The actual behavior of the tool is largely opaque.

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 appropriately short and front-loaded with the domain, followed by a structured list of operations. It is easy to scan. However, it sacrifices necessary detail for brevity, so it's not a perfect score.

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 (5 parameters, 3 operations) and lack of annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not map parameters to operations, explain required vs optional inputs, or describe the response format. An agent cannot reliably select and invoke the correct operation with only this description.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but it does not. It never explains what 'symbol', 'freq', 'project', or 'access_number' mean, nor which operation uses them. The agent is left with no information for constructing a valid request beyond the operation name.

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 identifies the tool as being about SEC filings, filing sentiment, and similarity analysis, and lists three specific operations (get_sec_filings, get_filing_sentiment, get_similarity_index). This distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on market events or news sentiment. However, it doesn't elaborate on what 'similarity index' or 'filing sentiment' exactly entail, so it's clear but not maximally specific.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools. It doesn't mention alternatives like finnhub_news_sentiment or describe use cases such as 'when you need SEC filing history.' The operations are listed without context, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate usage.

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