Full-text search across all EDGAR filings for a keyword or phrase (e.g. a risk factor, product name, or executive). Returns matching filings with company, form type, and date. Optionally restrict to a form type.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum number of results to return. | |
| query | Yes | Search phrase | |
| form_type | No | Optional form filter, e.g. 8-K |
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 discloses that this is a read-only search operation, states the scope ('across all EDGAR filings'), and describes the return fields (company, form type, date). It does not mention search semantics like exact phrasing, ranking, pagination limits, or completeness, but it provides reasonable behavioral context for a search tool.
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 with no filler. It front-loads the core behavior, gives concrete example use cases in parentheses, and states the return fields and optional restriction efficiently. Every sentence earns its place.
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 three-parameter search tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the core behavior, return shape, and an optional filter. It is missing details like sort order, pagination behavior beyond the limit param, or what happens when no results are found, but it is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke the tool correctly and interpret basic results.
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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds some context by giving example query types ('risk factor, product name, or executive') and restating that form_type is an optional filter, which reinforces the schema. It does not add meaning for the limit parameter beyond what the schema already provides.
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 a specific verb and resource: 'Full-text search across all EDGAR filings for a keyword or phrase.' It also explains what is returned (company, form type, date) and the optional form-type filter. It does not explicitly name sibling tools for contrast, but the 'across all EDGAR filings' scope already sets it apart from recent_filings and company_lookup.
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: when you need full-text search of filing content by keyword or phrase, optionally narrowed by form type. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or point to alternatives such as recent_filings for date-based listing or company_lookup for entity identification, so the usage context is clear but not fully explicit.
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.
Each tool targets a distinct aspect of SEC filing intelligence: identity lookup, full-text search, financial data, insider filings, and recent filing lists. The only possible overlap is between insider_transactions and recent_filings filtered by form type, but the specialized purpose of insider_transactions is clearly conveyed.
Names are readable but follow mixed conventions: company_lookup and filing_search are noun-noun compounds, recent_filings is adjective-noun, and financials is a bare noun. There is no consistent verb_noun pattern, and the variation makes it harder to predict tool names.
Five tools is well-scoped for an SEC filings intelligence server. Each tool addresses a major need without redundancy, and the count is within the ideal range for an MCP server.
The set covers core workflows: company resolution, search, financials, insider transactions, and recent filing lists. Minor gaps exist, such as direct filing text retrieval or specific filing metadata lookup, but agents can still accomplish most tasks using links and form-type filters.