Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• search_filingsA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  Annotations already declare readOnlyHint: true and openWorldHint: true, so the description is not responsible for those. The description adds context about full-text search and parameter formatting (e.g., 'use quotes for exact phrases'), but does not disclose details like pagination, result limits beyond the limit parameter, or potential idiosyncrasies of SEC filings. With annotations covering safety, this is adequate but not richly transparent.

  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 brief and front-loaded with the purpose. It uses newlines for readability and each sentence adds value. No redundant information.

  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?

  Given 5 parameters, an output schema exists, and annotations are provided, the description covers most necessary context. It explains the search functionality and the main parameters but omits the 'limit' parameter. For a simple search tool with output schema, this is mostly complete.

  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?

  Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for query (free text, quotes for exact phrases), forms (optional list of form types), and date_from/date_to (ISO dates). However, it does not describe the 'limit' parameter, which has a default of 20. This is a partial but useful addition beyond the schema.

  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 'Full-text search across SEC filing documents,' specifying the verb (search), resource (SEC filing documents), and scope (full-text). This distinguishes it from siblings like list_filings (likely list without full-text) and lookup_issuer (lookup issuer data).

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

  Usage Guidelines3/5

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

  The description provides parameter details but no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies usage through the context of SEC filings but does not state exclusions or recommend alternatives. For example, it doesn't clarify when to use search_filings vs list_filings.

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

• list_filingsA
  4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations indicate readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so description reinforces that this is a read operation. It discloses ordering and the resolution behavior for cik_or_query. However, it does not mention any rate limits, pagination, or the effect of the 'limit' parameter, which would add transparency.

  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 extremely concise, with two lines of text plus parameter explanations. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and includes only essential details. Every sentence adds value.

  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?

  Given the tool's complexity (3 parameters, output schema exists), the description covers the main functionality and key parameters. It could improve by explaining the 'limit' parameter, but overall it is sufficient for basic usage.

  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?

  Schema description coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It adds meaning for 'cik_or_query' (accepts digits or ticker/name) and 'form_type' (prefix filter). However, 'limit' parameter is entirely undocumented in description, leaving its purpose unclear.

  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 action ('list'), resource ('filings'), scope ('for one issuer'), and ordering ('newest first'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'search_filings' which likely provides more extensive search, and 'lookup_issuer' which likely finds issuer info.

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

  Usage Guidelines3/5

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

  The description explains what the tool does but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives. It mentions parameter usage (CIK/ticker resolution and form type filter) but lacks guidance on when not to use this tool or when to prefer 'search_filings'.

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

• lookup_issuerA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  The description adds value beyond annotations by explaining the return values (CIK, legal name, tickers, exchange) and the tool's role as a prerequisite for other tools. Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, which are consistent with a read-only lookup.

  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 succinct with three sentences, front-loading the purpose. Every sentence adds value, with no redundant or extraneous information.

  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?

  Given the tool's simplicity, existence of output schema, and annotations, the description is complete. It explains the query usage, output, and workflow integration. The limit parameter is not detailed, but it's a minor gap.

  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?

  Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the query parameter (ticker or name part) but does not describe the limit parameter. This provides partial coverage for a simple tool, warranting a score of 3.

  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 resolves a company name or ticker to its SEC CIK and basic identity, using specific verbs and resources. It distinguishes from siblings list_filings and search_filings which operate on filings, not issuers.

  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 provides clear context: use this tool to obtain a CIK before using other tools. It gives examples of input (ticker or name part) and explains the output. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it, but the purpose is well-defined and distinct from siblings.

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