List a company's most recent SEC filings (10-K annual reports, 10-Q quarterly, 8-K material events, S-1 IPO registrations, etc.) with filing dates and direct document links. Optionally filter by form type.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum number of results to return. | |
| query | Yes | Ticker, name, or CIK | |
| form_type | No | Optional filter, e.g. 10-K, 10-Q, 8-K, 4 |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action is a read-only 'List' and reveals what the response will contain (filing dates and direct document links), which is meaningful beyond the schema. It does not mention pagination or result-limit behavior, but the default limit is already documented in the schema.
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?
Two tight sentences with no filler. The main purpose and scope are front-loaded, output details are immediately useful, and the optional form_type filtering is stated cleanly. Every clause 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 simple list operation with fully documented parameters, the description covers the core invocation details and return content. It is slightly incomplete because it does not address the relationship to sibling tools or give any guidance on when a different filing tool would be more appropriate.
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 only marginal value beyond the schema, such as naming S-1 as an example form type; the schema already covers query, limit, and form_type, including the 10-K/10-Q/8-K examples. There is no substantial extra semantic detail.
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?
States a specific verb ('List'), a clear resource ('a company's most recent SEC filings'), and provides useful examples of included form types plus output details ('filing dates and direct document links'). It stops short of a 5 because it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling 'filing_search', though the 'most recent' wording implicitly narrows the scope.
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 the tool is for retrieving a company's latest SEC filings and that form_type can optionally narrow results, but it never states when to choose this over alternatives like filing_search. No exclusions, prerequisites, or sibling comparisons are given, so the guidance is somewhat 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.