Resolve a stock ticker symbol (e.g. AAPL, MSFT, NVDA) or numeric CIK to the canonical SEC entity record. Returns ticker, CIK, company name, and exchange. Pair with get_sec_submissions to retrieve filings. License: US Government public domain.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ticker_or_cik | Yes | Ticker symbol (case-insensitive) or numeric CIK |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are absent, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states what the tool returns and its license, but fails to mention idempotency, error handling, authentication requirements, rate limits, or any side effects. The agent cannot assess safety or failure modes from this description alone.
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 concise, consisting of two meaningful sentences plus a license note. It front-loads the purpose and return fields, and every sentence contributes value. The license note is minor but not detrimental.
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 (single parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the essential usage: purpose, return fields, and a pairing hint. However, it lacks details on error responses or edge cases (e.g., invalid ticker), which would improve 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 input schema covers 100% of parameters with a description for 'ticker_or_cik'. The description adds value by providing examples (AAPL, MSFT, NVDA) and clarifying that the input is case-insensitive, which goes beyond the schema's basic 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 verb 'Resolve' and the resource 'stock ticker symbol or numeric CIK to canonical SEC entity record'. It provides concrete examples (AAPL, MSFT, NVDA) and lists the return fields. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'search_sec_edgar' by specifying the exact output and pairing hint with 'get_sec_submissions'.
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 guidance to 'Pair with get_sec_submissions to retrieve filings', which helps agents understand the typical workflow. However, it does not specify when NOT to use this tool or mention alternatives beyond that pairing, 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.
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.
