Audited SEC catalyst signals for agents — ranked filing intel with a public track record. Free tier.
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.
Average 3.5/5 across 6 of 6 tools scored. Lowest: 2.8/5.
Each tool addresses a clearly distinct purpose: list picks, per-ticker signal, narrative thesis, sector context, options context, and historical track record. While get_thesis and get_ticker_signal both focus on a single ticker, one is qualitative and the other is quantitative, so an agent can easily choose based on need.
All tool names follow the same get_<noun> pattern, using snake_case consistently. The nouns are descriptive (picks, options_context, sector_lean, thesis, ticker_signal, track_record), making the API predictable and easy to navigate.
Six tools is a well-scoped size for a specialized financial analytics server. Each tool earns its place by covering a distinct aspect of the domain without redundancy or bloat.
The tool surface covers the core lifecycle of catalyst analysis: discover top picks, drill into any ticker's signal, read a narrative thesis, assess sector direction, obtain options context for trade construction, and evaluate historical reliability. There are no obvious dead ends or missing operations for a read-only analytics use case.
get_convergence_picksAInspectToday's top scored catalyst picks from the Catalyst Edge convergence model. Optional filters: conviction, sector. Free tier returns the top 3.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | max picks (default 25; free tier capped at 3) | |
| sector | No | filter by sector (substring match) | |
| conviction | No | filter by conviction level |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the free tier returns only the top 3, which is useful. However, it does not explain sorting beyond 'top scored,' what a pick contains, or any rate limits beyond the tier cap. The temporal qualifier 'Today's' adds context, but additional behavioral detail is absent.
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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose and immediately followed by filter and limit details. Every clause earns its place: 'Today's top scored catalyst picks' states what, 'Optional filters' previews parameters, and 'Free tier returns the top 3' conveys a key behavioral constraint. No redundancy or filler.
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?
For a simple retrieval tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential information: what it returns, when (today's), and a critical tier limitation. It does not describe the return structure, but given the low complexity and the wealth of schema details for parameters, this is largely sufficient. The lack of alternative tool references slightly reduces completeness, but the tool is straightforward enough that agents can invoke it correctly.
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 description coverage is 100%, with each parameter clearly described (limit, sector, conviction). The description restates 'Optional filters: conviction, sector' but adds no new meaning beyond the schema. It does not elaborate on conviction levels or limit behavior beyond what is already in the schema, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.
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 'Today's top scored catalyst picks from the Catalyst Edge convergence model,' specifying both the resource (catalyst picks) and the temporal scope (today's). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_ticker_signal or get_sector_lean, which focus on individual signals or sector leans rather than a ranked pick list.
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 usage (retrieve top picks) and mentions optional filters, but provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or exclusions relative to sibling tools. It does not name alternatives like get_thesis or get_options_context, so an agent must infer context from the tool's purpose. The free tier cap is noted, which helps with invoking correctly.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_options_contextAInspectLive options context for a ticker via Tradier — nearest expiration, ATM call/put prices, straddle cost. Use to choose an options strategy.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ticker | Yes | ticker symbol |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does indicate that the data is 'live' and sourced via Tradier, and it lists the returned fields. However, it doesn't mention error behavior, rate limits, or response structure. For a simple read-only data retrieval tool, this is adequate but not rich.
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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose and specific data points. It contains no redundant information and is highly scannable, earning a perfect score.
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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is fairly complete: it lists the returned data elements and the intended use case. However, it could explicitly describe the output format, so it doesn't reach a 5.
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 already fully documents the only parameter 'ticker' with the description 'ticker symbol' (100% coverage). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 provides live options context for a ticker via Tradier, including nearest expiration, ATM call/put prices, and straddle cost. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_convergence_picks or get_ticker_signal, though it doesn't explicitly compare itself to them. The verb is implied by the name 'get' and the phrase 'Live options context' makes the retrieval purpose clear.
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 an explicit usage directive: 'Use to choose an options strategy.' This gives clear context for when to use the tool. However, it does not provide any exclusions or mention alternative tools, so it falls short of a full 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_sector_leanCInspectOrphan-aggregated sector lean — the directional signal each sector is showing, from ~480 aggregated data spokes.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only mentions the data source (~480 aggregated data spokes) without explaining what that means. It does not state the tool's read-only nature, output structure, or any potential side effects. The term 'orphan-aggregated' adds confusion rather than clarity.
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 with no filler, front-loading the key concept 'sector lean'. However, the phrase 'orphan-aggregated' is unusual and not self-explanatory, which slightly reduces clarity. Overall, it is concise and appropriately sized.
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 annotations, no output schema, and zero parameters, the description carries the full burden of completeness. It does not explain what the output looks like, how to interpret the directional signal, or the meaning of 'orphan-aggregated'. An agent would have insufficient context to fully understand the tool's behavior and result.
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 has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter details, and the empty schema is sufficient. There are no parameters to explain.
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 identifies the resource as 'sector lean' and describes it as the directional signal each sector is showing, which goes beyond a tautology. However, 'orphan-aggregated' is vague jargon that obscures the tool's exact purpose, and the lack of an explicit verb makes the action less clear. It distinguishes from siblings by sector focus but only implicitly.
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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_ticker_signal. It does not mention any prerequisites, conditions, or contexts. The only hint is the sector focus, which implies a use case but is not explicitly stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_thesisBInspectPlain-language thesis for a ticker — quantitative read, catalysts, risks, bear case. Covers the top convergence picks.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ticker | Yes | ticker symbol |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the content of the thesis but not the return structure, data freshness, limitations, or any operational context. This under-transparency leaves the agent guessing about what to expect.
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 is front-loaded with the core purpose. The trailing phrase about convergence picks is slightly ambiguous but does not add unnecessary length or waste.
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?
For a one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description lists the key components of the thesis and gives a sense of scope. However, it omits how the response is structured, what 'top convergence picks' refers to, and any limitations, leaving gaps in 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 single 'ticker' parameter is fully documented in the schema (coverage 100%), so the baseline is appropriate. The description does not add any extra meaning or constraints to the parameter beyond what the schema already states.
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 uses a specific verb ('get') and resource ('thesis') scoped to a ticker, and enumerates the thesis components (quantitative read, catalysts, risks, bear case). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like get_ticker_signal or get_convergence_picks.
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 this tool is for a comprehensive, plain-language view of a ticker, but it does not explicitly state when to use it instead of siblings or provide alternative recommendations. The guidance is only implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_ticker_signalAInspectFull convergence breakdown for one ticker — every non-zero signal layer and its points, plus the score and conviction.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ticker | Yes | ticker symbol |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses output behavior (non-zero layers, points, score, conviction) but does not explicitly mention read-only status, side effects, or error conditions. The read-only nature is implied by the name 'get', but not stated.
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, front-loaded sentence that is concise and informative. Every element contributes to understanding the tool's function, with no redundancy or filler.
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 one-parameter schema and lack of output schema, the description adequately explains the return values (layers, points, score, conviction). It is complete enough for an agent to understand what the tool produces, though it could be more explicit about output format or structure.
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 description coverage is 100% with 'ticker symbol', and the description adds no additional meaning beyond referencing 'one ticker'. The baseline of 3 applies since the schema already documents 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 provides a full convergence breakdown for one ticker, enumerating signal layers, points, score, and conviction. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_convergence_picks by explicitly focusing on a single ticker.
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 usage is implied by 'for one ticker' but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like get_convergence_picks, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. It lacks clear contextual directions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_track_recordAInspectHistorical hit-rate and alpha of Catalyst Edge pick lists — the evidence an agent uses to weight the signal. Optional: list_name filter.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| list_name | No | filter to one pick list (substring match) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that data is historical and notes the optional list_name filter, but it does not describe return structure, sorting, pagination, or any side effects. It adds some context beyond the schema but leaves gaps.
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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by the optional filter note. Every word earns its place; no fluff or redundant information.
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?
For a simple single-parameter read tool without an output schema or annotations, the description covers the key elements: what data is returned, its purpose, and the available filter. It lacks an explicit return format or example, but the simplicity of the tool makes this sufficient.
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 100% for the single parameter, list_name, which already includes a description ('filter to one pick list (substring match)') and optionality. The description only repeats that the filter is optional, adding no additional semantics beyond the schema.
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 identifies the resource: historical hit-rate and alpha of Catalyst Edge pick lists. It distinguishes the tool from siblings by focusing on track record rather than current picks or market context. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieves' or 'returns', instead using an implied verb from the tool name.
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 provides implied usage context ('the evidence an agent uses to weight the signal'), suggesting when the tool would be relevant. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or state when not to use it, so alternatives and exclusions are missing.
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.
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!
Sign in to create a connector for this server.