FiledProof

Compare two SEC filings

filedproof.compare_filings

Read-onlyIdempotent

Compare two known filings from the same issuer and return source-backed added and removed disclosure blocks. Use this low-level operation when you already know the exact left and right accessions and only need a structural diff. Use filedproof.build_disclosure_lineage for multi-filing historical evolution, filedproof.build_timeline for topical chronology, or filedproof.check_disclosure_changes when you need prioritized new-change triage and recurring checkpoint semantics. Structural change is not semantic interpretation or a materiality judgment.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`item`	No	Optional filing item such as 1A or 7.
`left`	Yes	Left SEC accession number.
`limit`	No	Maximum number of operation-specific evidence or result records to return.
`right`	Yes	Right SEC accession number.
`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.

Changed2 schema fields changedSep 13, 2026

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

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, lowering the burden on the description. The description adds useful behavioral context by clarifying that results are source-backed, structural only, and not semantic or materiality assessments, which helps set expectations beyond the schema.

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 well-structured and front-loaded: a concise definition appears first, followed by explicit usage guidance and a clear limitation. Every sentence contributes value, and the alternatives are listed without rambling.

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?

For a structural comparison tool with a full input schema, output schema, and rich annotations, the description is complete. It covers the required preconditions, output scope, relational guidance to siblings, and an important caveat about interpretative limits.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all parameters and the description does not need to repeat them. The description adds modest semantic framing by emphasizing known accessions and same-issuer scope, but it does not add meaning beyond what the schema already conveys.

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-plus-resource pair: 'Compare two known filings from the same issuer' and clearly defines the output as 'source-backed added and removed disclosure blocks.' It also distinguishes itself as a low-level structural-diff operation, unlike its semantic siblings.

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 you already know the exact left and right accessions and only need a structural diff. It names three alternatives and the exact conditions for choosing them, and further clarifies that this is not semantic interpretation or materiality judgment.

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?