Skip to main content
Glama

TensorFeed

by ai.tensorfeed

search_sec_edgar

Lucene-style full-text search across the entire SEC EDGAR public-filings corpus since the 1990s. Forms include 10-K (annual), 10-Q (quarterly), 8-K (current event), DEF 14A (proxy), S-1 (IPO), 13F (institutional holdings), and ~70+ others. License: US Government public domain. The killer endpoint for finance and equity-research agents.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
qYesSearch query (Lucene syntax supported)
enddtNoEnd date YYYY-MM-DD
formsNoComma-separated form types (e.g. "10-K,10-Q,8-K")
limitNoMax hits (1-50)
startdtNoStart date YYYY-MM-DD

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It mentions Lucene-style search and public domain license but lacks details on rate limits, pagination, response format, or query constraints. Adequate but not thorough.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is three sentences, front-loading purpose and form examples. The last sentence is slightly marketing-flavored but still informative. Could be slightly more structured.

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?

Given 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers purpose, data source, and form examples. Missing date range syntax details and response structure, but adequate for a search tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by noting Lucene syntax for 'q' and listing example forms, which aids understanding beyond the schema alone.

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?

The description clearly states it performs full-text search on SEC EDGAR filings since the 1990s, lists specific form types, and targets finance/equity-research agents. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'get_sec_submissions' (which retrieves specific company submissions) and 'lookup_sec_company_ticker'.

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?

The description implies usage for financial research but does not explicitly state when not to use or provide comparisons to alternatives. The context from sibling tools helps, but explicit guidelines are absent.

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

All TensorFeed 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

A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

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.

Naming Consistency3/5

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.

Tool Count2/5

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.

Completeness3/5

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.

Resources