Skip to main content
Glama

FiledProof

by com.filedproof
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Verify a claim against SEC filings

filedproof.verify_claim
Read-onlyIdempotent

Conservatively assess one explicit factual claim against official SEC filing evidence and return support, contradiction, mixed, partial, or insufficient-evidence stance signals. Use this when the caller already has a proposition to test. Use filedproof.search_evidence for open-ended research, filedproof.reconcile_financial_fact for one supported standalone-quarter revenue, net-income, or operating-cash-flow value, or filedproof.check_disclosure_changes for new disclosure-change monitoring. A filing establishes what the company reported, not independent real-world truth.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
itemNoOptional SEC filing item such as 1A or 7.
claimYesThe factual claim to assess against the company's SEC filings.
formsNoSEC forms to search. Defaults to 10-K, 10-Q, and 8-K.
limitNoMaximum number of operation-specific evidence or result records to return.
filingsNoMaximum number of filings to inspect for this invocation.
historyNoWhether to use bounded historical SEC submission archives when needed.
sectionNoOptional exact normalized section heading.
identifierYesTicker, CIK, or exact SEC company name.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed4 schema fields changed
    • 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"
+}
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable context about the conservative assessment approach and the epistemic limitation (a filing is what the company reported, not independent real-world truth). This goes beyond the annotations, though it doesn't detail specifics like rate limits or caching.

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 compact but information-dense. It front-loads the primary purpose and stance signals, then provides sibling distinctions in a single sentence, and ends with a crucial epistemic caveat. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundancy.

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?

The tool is complex (8 params, output schema, 11 siblings), but the description covers all essential aspects: the claim to test, the evidence basis, the possible stance outputs, usage context, and sibling differentiations. With an output schema present, the description doesn't need to explain return values. Nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so all 8 parameters are individually documented. The description adds meaning by framing the core parameter 'claim' as an 'explicit factual claim' to test, which reinforces its purpose, though it doesn't add syntax or format details beyond what the schema provides. With full schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and the added framing justifies a 4.

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 ('assess'), a specific resource ('explicit factual claim against official SEC filing evidence'), and enumerates the exact stance signals returned. It also distinguishes the tool from several siblings by naming them and their purposes, making the tool's unique role clear.

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 the condition for use ('when the caller already has a proposition to test') and provides direct alternatives for other scenarios (open-ended research, reconciling standalone financial facts, and monitoring disclosure changes). This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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

All FiledProof toolsInspect
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