Signal8

Get Compliance Evaluation

get_compliance

Read-only

Get full compliance rules evaluation for a company: Nasdaq/NYSE deficiency detection, bid price tracking, and delinquent filing detection, combining SEC filing data, market data and exchange rules. Rules cover bid price, equity, reverse-split limit, market value of publicly held shares, publicly held shares, holders, timely periodic filings, annual meeting and audit committee, per exchange tier. Standards that could not be judged from any measurement are listed in notEvaluated: they are neither passing nor failing. Neither a notEvaluated standard nor the absence of a deficiency notice is evidence of compliance.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "ticker": "<ticker>"
    },
    "name": "get_compliance"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ticker`	Yes	Stock ticker symbol (e.g., AAPL, TSLA)

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`data`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed3 schema fields changedJun 30, 2026
- addedInput schema / additionalProperties
```
Added value: +false
```
- addedInput schema / properties / ticker / description
```
Added value: +"Stock ticker symbol (e.g., AAPL, TSLA)"
```
- removedOutput schema / required
```
Removed value: -[
-  "data"
-]
```

Changed1 schema field changedJun 28, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+  "additionalProperties": false,
+  "properties": {
+    "data": {}
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "data"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedJun 27, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already establish read-only, closed-world, non-destructive behavior, so the description's job is to add context — and it does: it discloses the data sources being combined (SEC filings, market data, exchange rules) and, crucially, defines what `notEvaluated` means and warns that neither `notEvaluated` nor the absence of a deficiency notice proves compliance. That is genuine interpretive behavior beyond the annotations, though latency, data freshness, and error behavior for invalid tickers are unaddressed.

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 capability statement is front-loaded, followed by the enumerated rule coverage and then the important `notEvaluated` caveat at the end. Every sentence carries information — the rule inventory justifies the tool's breadth and the final two sentences prevent a specific misreading of the results.

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?

With an output schema present, the description need not document return values, and it correctly spends its words on rule scope and the `notEvaluated` semantics that the schema alone would not convey. Minor gaps remain around coverage limits (e.g., whether non-exchange-listed companies are supported) for what is a fairly complex multi-source evaluation tool.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents `ticker` with an example. The description adds no format constraints, exchange-listing requirements, or lookup-failure semantics beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 correct.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

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 ("Get full compliance rules evaluation for a company") and enumerates the concrete checks performed: Nasdaq/NYSE deficiency detection, bid price tracking, delinquent filing detection, and the nine rule areas. This clearly separates it from siblings like get_dilution_risk or screen_must_raise, though it never names an adjacent tool, so it stops short of explicit sibling differentiation.

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?

Usage is implied by the domain — an agent can infer this is the tool for exchange-compliance questions — but there is no explicit statement of when to prefer it over get_dilution_risk or screen_must_raise, nor any exclusions such as non-listed/OTC tickers. The caveat about `notEvaluated` is interpretive guidance rather than routing guidance.

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

All Signal8 tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.