Skip to main content
Glama

Signal Nodus SEC Filings

by ai.signalnodus

Verify a financial claim

verify_financial_claim
Read-only

Deterministic check of a numeric claim against the company's own XBRL as filed with the SEC. Returns supported, contradicted, or unverifiable, with the as-reported value and the accession number to cite. Costs $0.10 per call.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
endNoAlternative to fiscal_year: exact period end date, YYYY-MM-DD.
companyYesTicker symbol (e.g. AAPL) or SEC CIK number (e.g. 320193).
conceptYesXBRL concept, e.g. Revenues or NetIncomeLoss.
fiscal_yearNoFiscal year of the claim, e.g. 2025.
claimed_valueYesThe value the claim asserts, in the concept's unit.
fiscal_periodNoFY, Q1, Q2, Q3, or Q4. Default FY.
tolerance_pctNoMatch tolerance in percent. Default 0.5.

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already indicate read-only and open-world semantics; the description adds determinism, cost per call, and the output structure (verdict, as-reported value, accession number), which are not present in annotations.

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?

Three concise sentences: purpose, return content, cost. No redundant information; front-loaded with the core function.

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?

For a tool with 7 parameters and no output schema, the description explains return values and cost but does not cover parameter selection nuances (e.g., end vs fiscal_year) or prerequisites. However, those are in the schema, and the description is otherwise adequate.

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?

Schema covers all 7 parameters fully (100% coverage). The description adds no additional parameter-level details beyond saying the claim is numeric and that the verdict relates to claimed_value. Baseline 3 applies.

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

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Clearly states a deterministic check of numeric claims against the company's own SEC XBRL filings, with specific verdict outcomes (supported/contradicted/unverifiable). This distinguishes it from general financial data tools like company_financials or compare_filings.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Provides clear context that this verifies claims against official XBRL filings, implying use for factual verification. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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

All Signal Nodus SEC Filings toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

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.

Naming Consistency3/5

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.

Tool Count2/5

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.

Completeness3/5

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.

Resources