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 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It does reveal an important behavioral distinction: omitting 'concept' returns most recent reported values, while supplying a us-gaap concept returns the full history of that concept. It also grounds the data source as XBRL-reported filings, which is meaningful context beyond the tool name.
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, information-dense sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core action and resource, lists the relevant metrics, and then adds the key mode distinction in a compact em-dash clause. Every part contributes to correct tool selection.
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 two-parameter tool with no nested objects and no output schema, the description is largely complete: it identifies inputs, data source, covered metrics, and output modes. It could further clarify whether 'most recent' refers to latest quarterly or annual reporting period, but overall an agent has enough information to 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?
The schema already documents both parameters at 100% coverage, providing a baseline of 3. The description adds value by explaining that the presence or absence of 'concept' changes the output mode from most-recent snapshot to full history, and by giving concrete examples of what concepts map to. This is more than the schema alone 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 states a specific verb ('Get') and resource (reported financial facts from XBRL filings), and enumerates the exact data items available. It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like filing_search or company_lookup by focusing on financial statement facts rather than filing discovery or entity metadata.
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 the tool: when you need revenue, net income, assets, liabilities, equity, EPS, or cash from XBRL filings. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives from the sibling list, so an agent must infer the appropriate usage context.
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 maps to a clearly distinct SEC data need: company identity resolution, full-text filing search, XBRL financials, insider transaction filings, and recent filing lists. Even the two filing-related tools are sharply separated by global keyword search versus company-specific recent activity.
All names use lowercase snake_case, but the pattern is mixed: company_lookup and filing_search use object+action, while financials, insider_transactions, and recent_filings are noun phrases. The names are readable and descriptive, but there is no consistent verb_noun structure across the set.
Five tools is well-scoped for an SEC filings intelligence server, covering lookup, search, financials, insider activity, and recent filings without redundant surface. Each tool has a clear role and the count sits comfortably in the ideal range.
The main research workflow is covered: identify a company, search filings, pull financial facts, inspect insider filings, and list recent SEC submissions. Minor gaps exist, such as no direct tool for fetching a single filing's full text or parsed insider transaction details, but returned links and financial data cover most needs.