filingpulse

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral details beyond that: 'newest first' ordering and the return envelope '{data, total, limit, offset}', both of which help an agent interpret results and paginate.

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 sentences, no filler. The first sentence states the action and includes concrete examples; the second covers filters and the return envelope. Every clause carries useful information and the main behavior is front-loaded.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by stating the return envelope. It also covers ordering, filter options, and pagination hints via 'total' and 'limit+offset' in the schema. For a read-only list endpoint with fully documented parameters, nothing essential is missing.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by giving the example item codes and their meanings (2.02 results of operations, etc.) and by summarizing the filter dimensions, helping clarify the 'item' parameter beyond the schema's bare pattern.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List SEC 8-K corporate events' and adds classification by official item code. The examples (2.02, 5.02, 1.01, 7.01) and the sibling names (insider trades, IPO registrations, schema) make it easy to distinguish this tool from alternatives.

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 gives clear context on what the tool is for and explicitly lists the filtering dimensions (item code, CIK, since-date), which tells an agent when this tool fits an 8-K look-up task. It doesn't explicitly name sibling tools or call out when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5 but is still clearly usable.

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

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

Annotations already declare this tool read-only and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about what status data is exposed and how it can inform query feasibility, but it does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as response size, staleness, or any operational caveats. Given the annotation coverage, a 3 is appropriate.

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 concise sentences: the first enumerates the returned fields and datasets, and the second gives the practical use case. There is no filler, and the most decision-relevant information is front-loaded.

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?

For a simple zero-parameter status tool with read-only annotations, the description is complete. It states what is returned, for which datasets, and why an agent should call it. No output schema exists, but the description sufficiently outlines the output dimensions.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to document about parameters. The schema description coverage is effectively 100%. The description does not add or need to add parameter semantics; the baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4.

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 a specific resource (dataset coverage/freshness) and enumerates exactly what it returns: row counts, latest ingest timestamps, and earliest covered filing dates for each dataset. It also names the datasets covered (Form 4, 8-K, registrations), distinguishing it from sibling tools that query events, trades, or filings.

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 explicitly states when to call the tool: 'Call this to learn what date range a query can be answered from.' This is clear usage context. It does not explicitly name when not to use it or mention alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by specifying that the response includes all transaction legs, holdings, and footnotes — information not present in annotations or schema.

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?

One efficient sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, includes the key identifier format, and lists the return contents. No filler or redundant clauses.

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?

For a simple single-parameter fetch tool, the combination of schema (parameter format and requirement), annotations (read-only, non-destructive), and description (return contents) covers everything an agent needs to select and invoke the tool correctly. No output schema is present, but the description sufficiently conveys the response contents.

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 100%: the single parameter 'accession' is fully documented with type and example in the schema. The description repeats the accession example but adds no new semantic meaning, so the baseline 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 uses a specific verb ('Fetch') and resource ('one Form 4 insider-transaction filing'), identified by SEC accession number. The singular focus and mention of transaction legs, holdings, and footnotes clearly distinguish it from the sibling get_insider_trades, which presumably handles trade lists.

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 clearly implies the tool is for retrieving a single filing when an accession number is known, and the detail offered ('all transaction legs, holdings, and footnotes') signals it is the richer, single-record counterpart to get_insider_trades. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it.

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

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

Even with readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, the description adds substantial behavioral context: newest-first ordering, string-typed numeric values, mandatory accession/filed_date fields, the pagination envelope, and the hosted/normalized nature of the data. This goes well beyond what the annotations or schema convey.

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?

Every sentence carries value: the first defines scope and contents, the second covers data-type semantics, the third lists filters, the fourth explains pagination, and the fifth removes integration worries. No redundant restating of parameter names or annotations.

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?

For a tool with no output schema and several filter parameters, the description provides a complete mental model: what is returned, in what order, in what shape, how paging works, and what is already handled for the caller. Nothing an agent needs to decide whether and how to call it is missing.

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 100%, so the schema already documents every parameter. The description reinforces the filter-by-ticker/CIK/form_type/since-date framing and the paging envelope, but it does not add meaning beyond the schema for individual parameters. Baseline 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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('List normalized SEC Form 4 insider-transaction filings'), then details exactly what payload elements are included. The plural 'filings' plus the list-and-paging framing clearly separates this from the sibling get_insider_filing without needing to open schemas.

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 clearly states what this tool is for — listing and filtering normalized Form 4 filings — and enumerates the available filter dimensions. It does not explicitly name an alternative or say 'for a single filing use get_insider_filing', so it stops just short of full when/when-not guidance.

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

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds valuable behavior: newest-first ordering, event-type inclusion, file-number threading, issuer object fields, coverage start date, and a {data, total, limit, offset} envelope expectation. No contradictions with annotations.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core action and ordering, then lifecycle stage details, then clear scope/coverage and envelope shape. Every sentence earns its place 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?

For a read-only list endpoint with 88% schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the essential behaviors: ordering, event types, threading, issuer fields, date coverage, and pagination envelope. It could mention default limit/pagination nuances, but the schema already carries limit/offset defaults, so the description is largely complete for an agent selecting and invoking the tool.

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 88%, so the schema already documents most parameter meanings. The description adds context that 'stage' corresponds to lifecycle stages and that file_number 'follows one offering across stages', which enriches those parameters, but most parameter meaning still comes from the schema. A 3 baseline 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 a specific verb (List), a clear resource (S-1/F-1 registration lifecycle events), and distinctive details (newest first, threaded by SEC file number, types of events, issuer attributes, coverage start date, response envelope). It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like get_registration_event and get_corporate_events by describing the broad lifecycle-oriented scope.

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 includes explicit selection signals: it lists the event types covered, states coverage is live-forward since 2026-08-01, and names the file-number threading concept. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or when not to use them, but the detail makes the intended use clear. The since/until fixed-window phrasing also gives useful when-to-use guidance.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond 'fetch one', such as the event domain and the lookup key, but it does not disclose error behavior or what 'lifecycle event' entails. This is adequate but not rich.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It communicates the action, the resource type, and the lookup key efficiently, earning a top score for conciseness and structure.

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?

Given the low complexity (one required parameter), the presence of safety annotations, and full schema coverage, the description is largely complete. The only minor gap is that it does not describe what a 'registration lifecycle event' includes, but this is not essential for correctly invoking the tool.

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%, so the schema already documents the accession parameter. The description reinforces that the accession is used to fetch an S-1/IPO registration lifecycle event, but it does not add format details or edge-case meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 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 uses a specific verb ('Fetch'), a specific resource ('one S-1/IPO registration lifecycle event'), and the lookup key ('by SEC accession number'). It clearly distinguishes this single-event fetch from sibling tools like get_ipo_registrations, which presumably list multiple registrations.

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 implies the tool should be used when the caller has a specific SEC accession number and wants one registration event. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name any alternative sibling tool, so the usage guidance remains implied rather than explicit.

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

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond those annotations: the schema is 'frozen', 'additive-only', and governed by design rules such as strings-as-filed and null-never-missing. This gives the agent a stable-contract expectation without contradicting the annotations.

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 purpose ('frozen schema-v1 contract') and then uses a colon-delimited list to enumerate scope. Every phrase earns its place, though the long list makes it slightly heavy.

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?

For a one-parameter, read-only reference tool with no output schema, the description covers the schema's contents, stability, design rules, and relevant sections. The only minor gap is not naming the 'overview' section explicitly, but the description otherwise provides sufficient context 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does partially by naming most enum-related content areas—form4, event_8k, registration_event, list_envelope, transaction_codes—and adding context about design rules. However, it does not explicitly map each enum value to its content or clarify what the default 'overview' section contains.

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 identifies a specific resource—the frozen schema-v1 contract for FilingPulse objects—and enumerates its contents (form4, event_8k, registration_event, list envelope, design rules, transaction-code table). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling data-retrieval tools, though it lacks an explicit verb such as 'retrieves' or 'returns'.

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 does not state when to use this tool versus the sibling data endpoints, nor does it provide any explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance. The intended use is only implied by the word 'reference' and the enumerated schema contents.

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