lookup_companyResolve a ticker or CIK to a company's canonical SEC identity: legal name, CIK, industry classification, tickers, and exchanges. Use this first when you only have a ticker and need the CIK for other calls. US SEC registrants only. Free: no key and no payment needed. Use it to verify the service before paying.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| company | Yes | Ticker symbol (e.g. AAPL) or SEC CIK number (e.g. 320193). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description only needs to add extra context. It adds useful details: 'Free: no key and no payment needed' and 'Use it to verify the service before paying.' It also notes the US SEC scope. However, it doesn't describe rate limits, data freshness, or error behavior, which would be valuable for a public API tool. Since the bar is lower with annotations, 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 efficient, front-loading the core purpose and then adding usage context. Each sentence contributes new information (purpose, when to use, scope, cost). It is not verbose, but contains a few separate clauses that could be tightened. Still, it remains well-structured and easily scannable.
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 simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description adequately covers what the tool does, its scope, and prerequisites. It even lists the expected return fields. No critical information appears missing for an agent to decide whether to invoke it. The only minor gap is lack of explicit mention of error cases (e.g., invalid ticker), but that's not essential for initial selection.
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 schema description fully covers the parameter 'company' with examples (AAPL, 320193). The description adds no new meaning beyond the schema—it simply restates 'ticker or CIK.' Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline is 3, and the description doesn't improve on it. No format details beyond the examples are provided.
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 states the verb ('Resolve') and resource ('a ticker or CIK to a company's canonical SEC identity'), and lists specific outputs (legal name, CIK, industry classification, tickers, exchanges). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like edgar_search by positioning itself as the first step for ticker-to-CIK resolution.
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?
Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use this first when you only have a ticker and need the CIK for other calls.' Also notes 'US SEC registrants only,' which sets a clear exclusion boundary. While it doesn't name alternative tools, the context implicitly suggests it's the initial lookup before other SEC-related calls. Missing an explicit 'use other tools when' statement keeps it from a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools have clearly written descriptions, but several pairs overlap semantically: token_price/token_report, latest_filings/recent_filings, and institutional_holdings/who_holds/activist_stakes all require careful reading to pick the right one. The overlap is not severe enough for a 2, but it is still more than the occasional confusion.
Names are consistently snake_case and mostly descriptive, but the set does not follow one naming convention. It mixes noun phrases (crop_data, token_report, insider_trades) with verb phrases (lookup_company, compare_filings, verify_financial_claim), and pairs like latest_filings/recent_filings create avoidable confusion.
31 tools is too many for what is nominally an SEC Filings server, and the scope sprawls into unrelated domains such as EVM gas, tokens, prediction markets, crop data, and x402 auditing. The count does not feel earned by a coherent workflow; it feels like an uncurated bundle of endpoints.
The SEC filing workflow is reasonably covered: company lookup, search, latest/recent filings, section extraction, 8-K events, comparisons, ownership filings, and XBRL financial checks are all present. However, there is no full-filing retrieval endpoint, no deep company financial history beyond a single concept, and many non-SEC subdomains are only one-off data points, so the overall surface is still incomplete.