FiledProof

Build answer-ready evidence pack

filedproof.build_evidence_pack

Read-onlyIdempotent

Package the strongest relevant SEC evidence for an upstream AI agent, preserving source URLs, locators, search scope, coverage, and explicit non-inference rules. Use this when the research question is already known and the caller wants a compact evidence bundle ready for downstream reasoning. Use filedproof.search_evidence for broader retrieval, filedproof.verify_claim for an explicit support-or-contradiction verdict, or filedproof.build_timeline for chronological organization.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`q`	Yes	Research question or disclosure topic.
`item`	No	Optional SEC filing item, such as 1A or 7.
`forms`	No	SEC forms to search. Defaults to 10-K and 10-Q.
`limit`	No	Maximum number of operation-specific evidence or result records to return.
`filings`	No	Maximum number of filings to inspect for this invocation.
`history`	No	Whether to use bounded historical SEC submission archives when needed.
`section`	No	Optional exact normalized section heading.
`identifier`	Yes	Ticker, CIK, or exact SEC company name.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed4 schema fields changedSep 13, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / filings / description

Added value: +"Maximum number of filings to inspect for this invocation."

addedInput schema / properties / history / description

Added value: +"Whether to use bounded historical SEC submission archives when needed."

addedInput schema / properties / limit / description

Added value: +"Maximum number of operation-specific evidence or result records to return."

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

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: it preserves source URLs, locators, search scope, coverage, and explicit non-inference rules, and it produces a compact bundle for downstream reasoning. It doesn't describe pagination or exact output shape, but the output schema exists and the annotations carry the safety burden, so a 4 is appropriate.

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 three sentences with zero waste. The core purpose is front-loaded, the usage condition is stated, and the sibling alternatives are listed compactly. Every sentence earns its place.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a read-only, idempotent tool with 100% schema coverage and an output schema, the description is nearly complete. It explains what the tool produces, when to use it, and how it differs from siblings. The only minor gap is that it doesn't describe the exact structure of the evidence pack, but the output schema covers that.

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 documents all 8 parameters. The description adds context about the overall purpose (packaging evidence) but doesn't add per-parameter meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is correct when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states a specific verb ('Package'), a clear resource ('strongest relevant SEC evidence'), and the intended consumer ('upstream AI agent'). It also explicitly names sibling tools (search_evidence, verify_claim, build_timeline) and distinguishes this tool from them, so an agent can tell them apart without opening schemas.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'when the research question is already known and the caller wants a compact evidence bundle ready for downstream reasoning.' It also names alternatives and their purposes: search_evidence for broader retrieval, verify_claim for support-or-contradiction verdicts, build_timeline for chronological organization. This is clear 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?