ipo_pipelineTrack companies progressing through the IPO pipeline by monitoring SEC EDGAR registration filings, including S-1, F-1, and 424B4, with listing status.
S-1 and F-1 registration statements, 424B4 final prospectuses, EFFECT notices and RW withdrawals from EDGAR, with the filer's listing status.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| new | No | Only filers not yet on the ticker list | |
| days | No | ||
| form | No | e.g. S-1,F-1 or 424B4 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.9Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does state the data source (EDGAR), the included document types, and that listing status is returned. However, it does not describe response structure, pagination, update frequency, or whether the listing status is current or historical, leaving moderate transparency gaps.
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 a single dense sentence that front-loads the core document types and adds the source and listing-status enrichment with no wasted words. It is concise while still carrying meaningful content.
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 is sufficient for an agent to identify the tool's domain and make a zero-parameter call, but it does not explain return values beyond 'listing status', lacks usage guidance, and leaves the 'days' parameter unexplained. Given the absence of an output schema and annotations, this is minimally viable but not complete.
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 description coverage is 67%: 'new' and 'form' have descriptions, while 'days' only has type and bounds. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning and does not compensate for the undocumented 'days' parameter. Since most parameters are already explained in the schema, 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 clearly identifies the tool as providing EDGAR IPO-related documents: S-1, F-1, 424B4, EFFECT, and RW withdrawals, plus listing status. It lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieves' or 'lists', so it is not a full 5, but the resource and domain are unmistakable and distinct from the sibling tools.
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 specialized EDGAR IPO content implies when this tool should be used, but there is no explicit guidance about when not to use it or how it differs from related siblings such as corporate_events or private_placements. The intended use is evident, but the routing guidance is only implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.