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: $0.003 USDC per call, paid with x402 on Base.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cik | No | SEC CIK number (alternative to ticker) | |
| forms | No | Comma-separated form types, e.g. 10-K,10-Q,8-K (default all) | |
| limit | No | 1-100, default 20 | |
| ticker | No | US ticker, e.g. AAPL (or use cik) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully discloses the cost ($0.003 USDC per call) and payment mechanism (x402 on Base), which is valuable non-schema context, but it does not address rate limits, error behavior, or confirm read-only semantics explicitly.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence followed by a short pricing note, with no wasted text. The key return fields and access method are presented efficiently.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has no output schema, the description appropriately lists the main return fields, including form, dates, accession, document URL, 8-K item codes, company name, SIC industry, and fiscal year end. It is complete enough for an agent to understand the payload, though it could mention filtering by form type more explicitly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
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 four parameters well. The description adds only that lookup can be done by ticker or CIK, which aligns with the schema but does not provide additional semantics for forms or limit beyond what is already structured.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the resource as recent SEC filings and lists the concrete contents returned, including form type, dates, accession, document URL, and 8-K item codes. It is specific enough for an agent to recognize the tool's domain, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools such as edgar_financials or edgar_insiders.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description says filings can be fetched by ticker or CIK, but it gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus related sibling tools like edgar_financials or edgar_insiders. There are no stated exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative-selection rules.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.