Skip to main content
Glama

FilingFirehose

by com.filingfirehose

search_13d_filings

Search recent SEC Schedule 13D / 13G filings from the past 72 hours.

Args:
    activist: Filter to filings tagged with this activist filer name.
        Substring match, case-insensitive. Examples: 'Saba', 'Starboard',
        'Icahn', 'Elliott', 'Pershing'.
    min_percent: Minimum percent of class disclosed.
    include_amendments: Include 13D/A and 13G/A amendments. Default True.
    include_passive_13g: Include passive Schedule 13G filings. Default False
        (only active 13D / 13D/A returned).
    limit: Max results (1-50, default 25).

Returns:
    JSON list of filings with cusip, percent_of_class, aggregate_amount,
    activist_filers, and an Item 4 purpose excerpt.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNo
activistNo
min_percentNo
include_amendmentsNo
include_passive_13gNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explains the search behavior, default inclusion/exclusion of amendments and passive 13G, and the return format. It does not explicitly state read-only or non-destructive nature, but as a search tool this is implied. The transparency is high, but not maximal.

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 concise (around 10 lines) and well-structured with an Args block and Returns block. It front-loads the purpose and each sentence adds value. No redundant information.

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 5 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, but an output schema exists, the description is impressively complete. It explains all parameters, their defaults, the 72-hour time window, and the return fields (cusip, percent_of_class, etc.). It leaves minimal gaps for an agent to understand how to use the tool.

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

Parameters5/5

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

The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate entirely. It does so excellently: for each parameter (activist, min_percent, include_amendments, include_passive_13g, limit), it provides clear semantics, defaults, and examples (e.g., activist with substring match and examples). This fully replaces the missing schema descriptions.

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 clearly states the verb 'Search', the resource 'SEC Schedule 13D / 13G filings', and the scope 'past 72 hours'. This is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_8k_filings and search_atm_offerings, which cover different filing types.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides clear context for when to use this tool (searching recent 13D/13G filings) and explains parameter defaults. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or direct the user to alternative tools, though the sibling names imply different use cases.

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

All FilingFirehose toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a distinct purpose: get_filing retrieves a specific filing by accession number, while the three search tools focus on different filing types (13D/13G, 8-K, ATM offerings). No overlap or ambiguity between them.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern: get_filing and search_<type>_filings. The slight difference between 'get' and 'search' is appropriate for the distinct operations (retrieval vs. search).

Tool Count5/5

With 4 tools, the server is well-scoped. It covers both retrieval of a specific filing and search across three important SEC filing categories. The count feels neither too thin nor too heavy for the domain.

Completeness3/5

The tools cover a niche but useful subset of SEC filings. However, there is no general search (e.g., by company name or date range) and no support for other common filings like 10-K or 10-Q. The 72-hour recency limit also restricts coverage. Gaps exist for broader SEC research.

Resources