Sivut SEC Crypto Filing Radar
Server Details
SEC EDGAR crypto filing radar MCP with x402-paid Base USDC data URLs.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Tool Definition Quality
Average 3.4/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.
The tools have distinct primary purposes: paid URLs for filings, sample filings, and general resource listing. However, slight overlap exists between sec_crypto_filings_paid_urls and x402_paid_resources regarding paid URLs, which could cause minor confusion.
Two tools follow a consistent 'sec_crypto_filings_*' pattern, but the third tool uses a different prefix 'x402_paid_resources', introducing inconsistency in naming convention within the set.
With only three tools, the server covers a narrow niche. While each tool serves a purpose, the count feels slightly thin for a comprehensive interface, but it is still reasonable given the focused domain.
The server lacks a tool to directly retrieve the full filing data; it only provides sample records and URLs. This creates a dead end for agents that need actual data beyond the sample, indicating major gaps in the workflow.
Available Tools
3 toolssec_crypto_filings_paid_urlsSEC Crypto Filing Paid URLsBInspect
Return paid x402 SEC crypto filing radar URLs, prices, payment metadata, and free sample URL.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It mentions returning data but lacks details on side effects, authentication, or rate limits. Does not disclose whether URLs are pre-computed or fetched on demand.
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?
Single sentence, front-loaded with return items. No wasted words, but could be as concise without losing meaning.
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?
Description lists return items but does not specify structure (e.g., list, object) or any constraints. No output schema to supplement, so the description is the sole source; it is adequate but not fully detailed.
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?
No parameters in input schema, and schema description coverage is 100% (empty schema). Baseline is 4 for zero parameters; description adds no additional parameter info, which is acceptable.
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?
Description clearly states the tool returns paid x402 SEC crypto filing radar URLs, prices, payment metadata, and a free sample URL. It distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying 'paid' and including pricing information.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling tools like sec_crypto_filings_sample or x402_paid_resources. The context of 'paid' versus 'sample' is implied but not stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
sec_crypto_filings_sampleSEC Crypto Filing SampleAInspect
Return up to three current public SEC EDGAR crypto filing radar sample records, plus paid x402 URLs for the full feed, CSV snapshot, and filing markdown.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns current public sample records, implying a read operation. However, it does not detail any side effects, authorization needs, or limitations beyond the 'up to three' constraint.
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 a single sentence that conveys all necessary information without redundancy. It is front-loaded with the primary action.
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 simple input schema (one parameter) and no output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose and output. However, it could elaborate on the 'paid x402 URLs' component.
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?
Schema coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention the 'limit' parameter. The schema already defines min/max/default, but the description adds no extra meaning or usage context for the parameter.
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 tool returns up to three public SEC EDGAR crypto filing radar sample records and paid x402 URLs. The verb 'return' and specific resource are explicit, differentiating it from sibling tools like sec_crypto_filings_paid_urls.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., sec_crypto_filings_paid_urls or x402_paid_resources). The description does not mention when not to use it or any prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
x402_paid_resourcesAll x402 Paid ResourcesAInspect
Return the full list of x402-paid public data resources exposed by this server.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It only states it returns a list, but does not disclose if it is read-only, whether it requires authentication, or any rate limits. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotations.
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?
A single, clear sentence with no redundant words. Every part earns its place: specifies the action, scope, and context.
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 and zero parameters, the description adequately explains what is returned. However, it could mention the format or structure of the list (e.g., array of resource identifiers) to be fully complete.
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?
There are zero parameters, which according to calibration guidelines gives a baseline of 4. The description adds value by describing what is returned, but no further parameter info is needed.
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 'Return the full list of x402-paid public data resources' – a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings 'sec_crypto_filings_paid_urls' and 'sec_crypto_filings_sample' by focusing on resources, not filings.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings. The description does not mention that for specific filings or URLs one should use the other tools, leaving the agent without context to decide correctly.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!