finnhub_sec_filings

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'Supports JSON export for large datasets' which is a useful behavioral trait, but fails to disclose whether operations are read-only, require authentication, have rate limits, or produce side effects. For a tool with three distinct operations, the absence of per-operation behavior is a significant gap.

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 short (two sentences plus a list of operations), but contains a typo (double period) and repeats the enum values from the schema. The list of operations could be integrated more concisely. It is adequately sized but not optimally structured.

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?

Without an output schema, the description should explain return values or results for each operation. It does not. For a tool with 7 parameters and three distinct operations, the description is too minimal to guide an agent on what to expect from each call, reducing completeness.

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 high (86%, effectively all parameters described), so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by noting JSON export capability, which relates to the 'export' parameter, but does not elaborate on other parameters beyond what the schema already provides. No additional meaning is added for parameters like 'from', 'to', 'form', or 'symbol'.

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 accesses 'SEC filings and filing sentiment analysis' and lists three specific operations (get_sec_filings, get_filing_sentiment, get_similarity_index). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like finnhub_crypto_data or finnhub_news_sentiment, which focus on different data types. The verb 'access' plus specific resource 'SEC filings' makes the purpose unambiguous.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling tools cover different domains (crypto, forex, news, etc.), but the description does not provide a decision rule or mention when to use this tool specifically. It only states the operations without context on suitability or prerequisites.

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