capabilities

Resolve a US company name to its SEC CIK and ticker

company_us_resolve

Read-onlyIdempotent

Turn a company-name fragment or stock ticker into the SEC EDGAR identifiers. Use when: Which SEC filer and CIK does the company name "Apple" belong to? Not for: You already have a ticker or a CIK and want profile or filings — company.us.profile, company.us.filings and company.us.filings.latest accept either identifier directly, so this extra call is unnecessary. Related: company_us_profile; company_us_filings_latest; company_us_filings; entity_lei_search. Price: USD 0.002/call (x402), 0.0015 (account key).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`q`	Yes	Ticker symbol (e.g. AAPL) or company-name fragment (e.g. Apple). Matching is case-insensitive and trimmed; no fuzzy matching is applied.
`limit`	No	Maximum number of ranked matches to return. Ranking is applied before the limit; page.total reports how many matched in full.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`data`	Yes	Capability output; full JSON Schema at https://api.eckari.com/v1/capabilities/company.us.resolve
`meta`	Yes

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the description's burden is low. The description adds context about matching behavior (case-insensitive, trimmed, no fuzzy matching) and pricing. However, it does not elaborate on ranking criteria or pagination beyond what the schema already provides for the limit parameter.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is very concise: two initial sentences state the action, followed by structured use-case guidance and pricing. Every sentence serves a distinct purpose, and the key information is front-loaded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Combined with the input schema (100% covered), annotations, and an output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: input type, use cases, when not to use, related tools, and pricing. The tool is simple and the description is complete enough for an agent to correctly select and invoke it.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents both parameters. The description does not add new semantic information beyond echoing the schema (e.g., matching details, limit behavior). Therefore the description provides no additional value for parameter understanding.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description explicitly states the tool converts a company-name fragment or stock ticker into SEC EDGAR identifiers (CIK and ticker). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by specifying what it is not for and naming alternatives that accept identifiers directly.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Provides explicit 'Use when' and 'Not for' sections with examples and names specific alternative tools (company.us.profile, company.us.filings, company.us.filings.latest). Also lists related tools and pricing, giving clear guidance on when to call this tool versus others.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All capabilities tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Tools are largely distinct, targeting specific entities (UK company, US company, domain, LEI, FX, location, parcel, weather) or sub-aspects (e.g., accounts vs. charges vs. directors). Overlap exists between company.uk.profile and company.uk.status (both contain status info, but the latter is cheaper and focused). Also, company.uk.filings and company.us.filings_latest could be confused if an agent generalizes 'filings' across jurisdictions.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools follow a consistent pattern: domain_entity_subject (e.g., company_uk_accounts, domain_expiry, weather_us_alerts). Underscores and lower case are used throughout. Verbs are implied by the noun (e.g., 'search' for lookup, 'detect' for identification). No mixed conventions or unpredictable names.

Tool Count4/5

24 tools is on the high side but still reasonable for a general-purpose data server spanning multiple domains (company, domain, entity, fx, location, parcel, weather). Each domain gets a cohesive set, and the documentation justifies each tool. Could be slightly leaner if some niche tools (e.g., domain_expiry vs. registration) were merged, but overall scoping is acceptable.

Completeness4/5

Each domain offers good coverage: UK company tools cover CRUD-like operations (profile, status, search, filings, charges, directors, owners, registered office); similarly for US companies (profile, filings, resolve, latest filings). Weather has forecast, observation, alerts. Parcel only detects carrier (no tracking). Missing features like advanced filtering on company filings or less common domains, but core workflows are covered.

Resources

Need Help?