Retrieve recent SEC filings and document links for a stock ticker, filtered by selected forms such as 10-K, 10-Q, or 8-K.
Recent SEC filings with document links. forms filters, e.g. ["10-K", "10-Q", "8-K"].
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| forms | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| ticker | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so safety and repeatability are covered without description text. The description adds that results include document links, a small but real piece of return-content context; it says nothing about ordering, recency window, or coverage limits.
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?
Two short sentences, zero filler, with the core purpose front-loaded and the filter detail second. Nothing here could be removed without losing information.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be spelled out, and the annotations cover the safety profile. Still, for a 3-parameter tool at 0% schema coverage, the description leaves `limit` semantics and what 'recent' actually means undefined.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage the description must carry parameter meaning, and it does clarify `forms` with concrete example values (["10-K", "10-Q", "8-K"]), which is genuinely useful since no enums exist in the schema. However `limit` (page size, max value, offset behavior) and the `ticker` format are left entirely to inference, so the compensation is partial.
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?
States a concrete verb+resource pair ('Recent SEC filings') and adds that results carry document links, which is more than a restatement of the name. It is distinguishable from get_financials and get_market_data by the 'filings' framing, though it never explicitly names a sibling to contrast with.
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 offers no when-to-use context, no prerequisites, and no routing to alternatives such as get_financials for reported numbers. The only usage hint is the `forms` filter example, which is a parameter note rather than selection guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.