edgar_lookup

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

Behavioral transparency is limited. While the description mentions cost and payment method ($0.01/call via x402 on Base mainnet), it does not disclose whether the tool requires authentication, what data it returns, or any side effects. Since no annotations are present, the description carries the full burden but falls short.

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 extremely concise with just two sentences: one for purpose and one for pricing. 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?

The description lacks completeness for a tool with no output schema. It does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., company data, filing information) or any prerequisites. Given that the tool has only one optional parameter, more context on expected output would significantly improve usability.

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% with one optional 'ticker' parameter described as 'Ticker (default: AAPL).' The description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 states 'SEC EDGAR company lookup,' which clearly identifies the tool's purpose as looking up companies on EDGAR. The name 'edgar_lookup' aligns precisely. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'sec_filing_analyzer,' which might serve a related but distinct function.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only includes pricing information without any context about appropriate use cases or exclusions.

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