Given a company CIK, return recent filings, insider activity, and a filing-velocity stat (last-90 vs prior-90 days). Live-backfilled from EDGAR so it works day one.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cik | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses live-backfilling from EDGAR and day-one freshness, adding valuable behavioral context.
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?
Single sentence that efficiently conveys all key information: inputs, outputs, and data source. No 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?
Describes the three types of returned data and the data source, which is sufficient for a tool with one parameter and no output schema. Minor details like the number of filings are omitted.
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 coverage is 0%, but the description explains that 'cik' is a company CIK, thus adding meaning 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 states it returns recent filings, insider activity, and a filing-velocity stat for a given CIK, distinguishing it from siblings like filing_digest or insider_activity.
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?
It indicates when to use (for combined data per CIK) and mentions day-one availability, but lacks explicit when-not or alternatives.
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 filings research: company_watch for a company overview, filing_digest for recent summaries, insider_activity for insider transactions, search_filings for ad-hoc full-text search, and whats_new_since for incremental updates. No ambiguity between them.
All tool names use descriptive snake_case with a clear verb_noun or noun_verb pattern (e.g., company_watch, insider_activity, search_filings). The naming style is consistent and intuitive.
With 5 tools, the server is well-scoped for its domain of SEC EDGAR data access. Each tool serves a clear purpose without unnecessary overlap, and the count is appropriate for the feature set.
The tool set covers key use cases: company monitoring, insider activity, full-text search, and incremental updates. Minor gaps could include direct retrieval of a single filing by accession number or more granular filtering, but the core workflows are complete.