get_companyCIK, legal name, SIC industry, fiscal-year end, exchanges and website for a ticker, resolved from SEC EDGAR submissions.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ticker | Yes | US stock ticker, e.g. 'AAPL'. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate safe, read-only, idempotent behavior. The description adds transparency about the data source (SEC EDGAR submissions) and the specific fields returned, providing context beyond the annotations. No contradictions found.
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 sentence that efficiently lists the returned fields and the data source. No unnecessary words or repetition.
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 single parameter, high annotation coverage, and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It specifies the output fields and source. Minor omission: it does not explicitly state that the tool returns a single company, but this is implied by the ticker parameter.
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 input schema has 100% coverage with a clear description for 'ticker'. The description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema's definition, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 returns specific company profile fields (CIK, legal name, SIC industry, etc.) for a given ticker, resolved from SEC EDGAR. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_filings or get_fundamentals by specifying the exact output type.
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 for retrieving a company profile but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It does not mention alternatives or conditions, though sibling names provide some context. Usage is implied rather than directly instructed.
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 SEC EDGAR resource and action: company info, filings, fundamentals, ratios, insider trades, activist stakes, fund holdings, events, and narrative sections. There is no overlap in purpose, and descriptions clarify any potential ambiguity (e.g., get_activist vs get_holdings).
All tools follow a consistent 'get_' prefix followed by a singular or plural noun (e.g., get_company, get_filings, get_ratios). The pattern is uniform and predictable, making it easy to infer behavior from the name.
Nine tools is well-scoped for a financial data server covering company profiles, regulatory filings, and derived metrics. Each tool has a clear, non-redundant role, neither feeling sparse nor bloated.
The surface covers the core EDGAR resources: company metadata, filings, financial statements, ratios, insider activity, activist filings, fund holdings, material events, and narrative sections. Minor gaps exist (e.g., direct search for specific filing types or proxy statements), but agents can accomplish most research workflows without dead ends.