Skip to main content
Glama

Genexxis paid agent tools (x402)

edgar_filings

Recent SEC filings for a US company by ticker or CIK: form, filing and report dates, accession, document URL, 8-K item codes with titles, plus company name, SIC industry and fiscal year end. Price: $0.005 USDC per call, paid with x402 on Base.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "edgar_filings"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
cikNoSEC CIK number (alternative to ticker)
formsNoComma-separated form types, e.g. 10-K,10-Q,8-K (default all)
limitNo1-100, default 20
tickerNoUS ticker, e.g. AAPL (or use cik)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description still discloses the most consequential behavior: a paid call at $0.005 USDC via x402 on Base, which an agent must know before invoking. It omits ordering guarantees for "recent", failure modes, and rate limits, which keeps it below 5.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, zero filler, with the resource identity front-loaded ahead of the pricing note. The return-field enumeration is long but earns its place because there is no output schema.

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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description carries the load well by listing what comes back and disclosing payment. Remaining gaps — sort ordering, page/limit behavior, rate limits — are modest for a simple read tool.

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 coverage is 100%, so ticker, cik, forms and limit are already documented. The description reinforces the ticker/CIK alternative and hints at filtering by form via its field list, but adds no syntax or defaulting detail beyond the schema — baseline 3.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Names a specific verb and resource — "Recent SEC filings for a US company" — and enumerates the returned fields (form, dates, accession, document URL, 8-K items). An agent can distinguish it from edgar_facts, edgar_financials and edgar_insiders by the content described, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is only implied: it accepts "ticker or CIK" as the identifying input, which tells the agent what to supply, but gives no when-to-use vs. edgar_financials/edgar_facts guidance and no exclusions or prerequisites.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources