SEC EDGAR Fundamentals

Ownership Form Types and Transaction Codes

list_ownership_codes

Publishes the vocabulary every insider answer is written in: the three SEC ownership form types — Form 3, the initial statement filed when somebody becomes an insider; Form 4, the change; Form 5, the annual catch-up filing — and every Form 3/4/5 transaction code with a plain-language meaning, its category, and whether it describes an open-market decision at all. Read this before drawing any conclusion from an insider row, because the raw one-letter codes are the largest source of wrong ones: only P is an open-market purchase and only S is an open-market sale, F records shares withheld or delivered to satisfy an exercise obligation or a tax liability when an award vests, M is an option exercise or conversion, and A is a grant. Reporting any of the last three as a market decision manufactures signal out of routine compensation mechanics. Takes no arguments and reads no data, so it answers even when nothing else can. See /.well-known/x402 for current pricing.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and it does well: it discloses the tool is non-data-reading ('reads no data'), takes no arguments, and points to current pricing. It does not discuss latency, errors, or access constraints, but none appear material for a read-only vocabulary tool.

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?

The text is longer than average but each section earns its place: purpose, warning about code misinterpretation, key examples, no-argument/no-data behavior, and pricing link. It is front-loaded with the core purpose; only minor trimming could tighten the lengthy first sentence.

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?

Despite no output schema or annotations, the description explains what will be returned (form types plus codes with meaning, category, and open-market flag), when to use it, behavior, and pricing. An agent has enough to decide whether and how to invoke it.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, and the schema already documents this; the baseline for no-parameter tools is 4. The description reinforces that there is nothing to pass ('takes no arguments'), which is sufficient.

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 names a specific verb ('publishes a vocabulary') and an exact resource: SEC ownership form types and Form 3/4/5 transaction codes. It also differentiates itself from sibling data tools by explicitly stating it takes no arguments and reads no data.

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 gives an explicit trigger condition: read this before drawing any conclusion from an insider row, and explains the reference can answer when no data is available. It does not name sibling tools or state exact when-not-to-use cases, so it falls just short of full routing guidance.

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 tools Inspect

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

Need Help?