FiledProof

Build historical disclosure lineage

filedproof.build_disclosure_lineage

Read-onlyIdempotent

Build or reuse a persisted disclosure history for one issuer and topic, with deterministic per-filing fingerprints and same-form transition edges backed by exact SEC evidence. Use this when historical evolution or repeat reuse matters. Use filedproof.compare_filings for a one-off exact filing pair, filedproof.build_timeline for simple chronology without reusable transition state, or filedproof.build_disclosure_matrix when the objective is comparison across multiple companies. Structural change is not a materiality judgment.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`item`	No	Optional SEC filing item such as 1A or 7.
`forms`	No	SEC forms to include. Defaults to 10-K and 10-Q. Same-form transitions are linked independently.
`limit`	No	Maximum topic-relevant change evidence records retained per transition.
`topic`	Yes	Public-company disclosure topic whose filing-to-filing history should be accumulated, such as AI regulation, cybersecurity, or supply-chain concentration.
`filings`	No	Maximum filings to inspect in this invocation. Previously persisted lineage can contain more accumulated history.
`history`	No	Use bounded historical SEC submission archives when the durable catalog does not already provide enough history.
`section`	No	Optional exact normalized section heading.
`identifier`	Yes	Ticker, CIK, or exact SEC company name.
`comparisonLimit`	No	Maximum changed blocks inspected in each same-form structural comparison.
`fingerprintLimit`	No	Maximum relevant evidence records used to fingerprint one filing.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedSep 13, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": true,
+  "description": "Structured FiledProof result with operation-specific evidence, provenance, coverage, and uncertainty fields.",
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedSep 11, 2026

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already provide idempotent, read-only, and non-destructive hints. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond those: lineage is persisted/reusable, fingerprints are deterministic, transitions are backed by exact SEC evidence, and structural change alone is not a materiality judgment. These details materially shape how an agent should interpret results.

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?

Four sentences with no filler: the core action and outcome are front-loaded, followed by crisp usage guidance and a caveat preventing misinterpretation. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (10 parameters, output schema, many siblings), the description is remarkably complete. It explains what is built, when to use it, which alternatives to choose, and a key interpretive limitation. The output schema covers return-value details, so nothing essential is missing.

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 input schema already explains every parameter. The description reinforces the overall purpose around 'one issuer and topic' but does not add parameter-specific semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Build or reuse a persisted disclosure history for one issuer and topic,' and adds concrete details like deterministic per-filing fingerprints and same-form transition edges. This makes the tool's function clear and easily distinguishable from siblings such as build_disclosure_matrix and build_timeline.

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?

The description explicitly states when to use this tool ('when historical evolution or repeat reuse matters') and names specific alternatives for other scenarios: compare_filings for one-off pairs, build_timeline for simple chronology, and build_disclosure_matrix for cross-company comparison. This is exemplary routing guidance.

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

All FiledProof tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?