Get reported financial facts for a company from XBRL data in its filings: revenue, net income, total assets, liabilities, equity, EPS, and cash — most recent reported values, or the full history of one specific us-gaap concept.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | Ticker, name, or CIK | |
| concept | No | Optional specific us-gaap concept, e.g. Revenues, NetIncomeLoss, Assets |
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 implies a read operation ('Get reported financial facts') but lacks details on idempotency, auth requirements, rate limits, error handling, or data freshness. More explicit behavioral context is needed.
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, dense sentence that front-loads the purpose. It is reasonably concise but could be broken into multiple sentences for easier parsing.
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 (2 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers core functionality adequately. However, it omits details about output format, error cases, and how it differs from sibling tools, which limits 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?
Schema coverage is 100%, but the description adds value by explaining the usage pattern: without 'concept', returns most recent values; with 'concept', returns full history. It also lists example us-gaap concepts, supplementing 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 states the tool retrieves financial facts (revenue, net income, etc.) from XBRL filings for a company. It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on financial data, not company lookup or insider transactions.
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: use for key financial metrics, with an optional concept for full history. However, it does not explicitly state when to use alternatives or when not to use this tool, leaving cross-tool guidance implicit.
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.