Get entity metadata + recent filings for one company by CIK. Accepts canonical zero-padded CIK ("0000320193"), bare numeric ("320193"), or "CIK0000320193" prefixed. Returns full company profile (name, tickers, exchanges, EIN, SIC, addresses) plus the most-recent ~1000 filings. License: US Government public domain.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cik | Yes | CIK in any zero-padding form, or CIK-prefixed |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return content (profile fields and ~1000 most recent filings) and the license. It does not mention rate limits, authentication, or potential errors (e.g., invalid CIK), but it provides a clear picture of what the tool does and returns.
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 three sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: action, input format, output details, and license. It is front-loaded with the key verb and resource, and no sentence is redundant or unnecessary.
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 no output schema, the description adequately describes the return values (profile fields and filings count). For a single-parameter tool, the description covers essential aspects. However, it lacks details like filing date range or ordering, which would be beneficial for completeness.
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 has 100% description coverage with a brief param description. The tool description adds significant value by enumerating three accepted CIK formats with examples, which clarifies the parameter's flexibility beyond the schema's generic description.
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 action ('Get entity metadata + recent filings for one company by CIK'), specifies the resource (SEC submissions), and distinguishes itself from siblings like `search_sec_edgar` by focusing on a single company lookup. It also clarifies the acceptable CIK formats, making the purpose unambiguous.
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 when to use this tool (for a single company's metadata and filings). It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the context from sibling names (e.g., `lookup_sec_company_ticker`, `search_sec_edgar`) suggests other tools for different use cases. The license info adds minor usage context.
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.
Several security/vulnerability tools (check_ai_supply_chain_risk, get_cve_record, get_osv_advisory_by_id, get_osv_advisory_for_package) have overlapping purposes, making it potentially confusing to choose the right one. Other tools are more distinct, but the ambiguity in this cluster lowers the score.
All names are snake_case and mostly follow a verb_noun pattern, but the verbs are inconsistent (check, get, list, lookup, query, register, route, search, submit, whats_new). Some tools use 'get' while others use 'check' for similar retrieval actions, and 'whats_new' does not fit the verb_noun pattern.
With 27 tools, the count exceeds the 25 threshold for 'too many', even though the broad scope spans many domains. The sheer number makes the server feel heavy and harder to navigate.
The server covers a wide range of data domains, but notable gaps exist: no management of watch subscriptions (only register), no CVE search, and no model search. Write operations are minimal, leaving some workflows incomplete.
