ipo_pipelineRetrieve S-1, F-1, 424B4, EFFECT, and RW filings from EDGAR to track IPO progress, including each filer's current 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.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It identifies EDGAR as the source and the filing types covered, but does not disclose read-only status, rate limits, pagination, authentication needs, or how omitted parameters behave.
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 resource and scope without unnecessary words. Every phrase contributes to identifying the tool's data.
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?
There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description must do more. It states the data scope but omits input defaults, return structure, and usage context, leaving meaningful gaps for correct invocation.
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 67%. The description lists form examples that partly overlap the form parameter, but it does not explain the days parameter, the new filter, or defaults when parameters are omitted. It adds little beyond the schema for parameter meaning.
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 names specific EDGAR filing types (S-1, F-1, 424B4, EFFECT, RW) and the filer listing status, so the resource is clear. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings or state a retrieval verb, but the content is specific enough to identify the tool.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or related tools such as corporate_events. The description only states what data is included.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.