Skip to main content
Glama

SEC EDGAR Fundamentals

by com.toolfeeds

List Recent Filings

list_filings

Recent EDGAR filing history for one company, newest first: form type (10-K, 10-Q, 8-K, S-1 and the rest), filing date, the period end the document reports on, its accession number and a direct link to the document. Use it to establish what a company has filed and when — whether the latest annual report is out, whether a fiscal quarter has been reported yet, or how much recent 8-K activity there has been — before deciding which numbers are even available. Pass form to narrow to one filing type; omit it for every type. See /.well-known/x402 for current pricing.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
formNoOptional EDGAR form-type filter, for example "10-K" for annual reports, "10-Q" for quarterly, or "8-K" for material events. Omit to receive every form type. Narrowing here is cheaper than filtering the returned rows.
limitNoHow many filings to return, newest first. Accepts 1 to 100; defaults to 25 when omitted. Ask for the fewest that answer the question.
tickerYesExchange ticker symbol of a single SEC filer, case-insensitive, such as AAPL, MSFT or KO.

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It states the ordering ('newest first'), the specific data elements returned (form type, filing date, period end, accession number, direct link), and mentions pricing at /.well-known/x402. It does not mention rate limits or authentication, but the read-only nature is evident.

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 three sentences: the first defines the output, the second gives usage context, the third gives form-filter guidance. Every sentence contributes; no filler.

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?

Without an output schema, the description enumerates the return fields and ordering, explains why to use the tool, and points to pricing. This is sufficient for an agent to decide when to call it and what to expect, covering the tool's 3-parameter API.

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?

The schema covers all three parameters (ticker, form, limit) with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description's only parameter guidance is a redundant 'Pass `form` to narrow; omit it for every type,' which adds no new semantics beyond the schema's existing note that narrowing is cheaper. Therefore a 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with 'Recent EDGAR filing history for one company, newest first' and enumerates the returned fields (form type, filing date, period end, accession number, link), clearly differentiating it from financial metrics and company profile tools. The verb 'list' and resource 'filings' make the operation unambiguous.

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?

It explicitly states use cases: 'Use it to establish what a company has filed and when' with concrete examples (annual report, fiscal quarter, 8-K activity), and it notes to pass `form` to narrow or omit for all types. It subtly hints that this is a precursor to pulling numbers, but it doesn't name alternative tools directly.

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

All SEC EDGAR Fundamentals 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

Every tool targets a distinct resource and action: company reference, financial statements, single-metric history, cross-company comparison, filing history, insider transactions, insider aggregation, and vocabulary lookup. Cross-references between insider tools make boundaries explicit and prevent misselection.

Naming Consistency4/5

Names are all snake_case and mostly follow predictable verb_noun conventions like get_*, list_*, and screen_*. A few noun-phrase names (company_profile, insider_profile, issuer_insider_activity) and adjective-noun names (latest_insider_filings) break the strict pattern, but the meaning remains clear.

Tool Count5/5

Twelve tools is well within the ideal range for a focused SEC EDGAR fundamentals server. Each tool covers a meaningful slice of either financial data or insider ownership data, and none feels redundant or unnecessary.

Completeness4/5

The server covers the core read-only workflows well: company identity, normalized financials, metric history, cross-company comparison, filing history, insider transactions, insider profiles, and vocabulary support. Minor gaps exist—no company search by name/CIK and no raw filing text retrieval—but common fundamental and insider questions can be answered without dead ends.

Resources