SEC EDGAR filing digest MCP server with pay-per-call access via the x402 payment protocol.
Scored across 2 tools
The two tools both return SEC EDGAR filing digests, so there is some surface overlap. However, filings_digest_sample is explicitly a free canned AAPL demo, while filings_digest is the paid ticker/CIK endpoint, making the intended distinction clear.
Both names use consistent snake_case and a predictable pattern: filings_digest plus the _sample suffix for the demo variant. There is no mixed convention or vague naming.
Two tools is slightly below the typical 3-15 range, but the server has a narrow single-purpose scope: one paid digest endpoint and one free demo. Each tool earns its place, though the surface is minimal.
The surface covers the core capability: paid filing digest retrieval plus a free sample for testing. There are no obvious dead ends for the stated purpose, though the server does not expose additional filtering or lookup operations beyond the digest call.
Event digest of recent SEC EDGAR filings for a ticker/CIK. PAID: $0.005 USDC on Base (eip155:8453) via x402. Without payment the tool returns isError with the x402 PAYMENT-REQUIRED challenge (structuredContent.x402 + _meta['x402/error']). Retry with params._meta['x402/payment'] (or HTTP header PAYMENT-SIGNATURE on the /mcp request) carrying the signed payment payload. Not investment advice.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cik | No | 10-digit CIK | |
| forms | No | default [8-K,10-Q,10-K] | |
| limit | No | ||
| since | No | ISO date | |
| ticker | No | e.g. AAPL |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations, the description discloses the paid cost, payment protocol, exact failure mode when unpaid, and the retry mechanism using x402 payment metadata or the PAYMENT-SIGNATURE header. This is unusually rich behavioral context for an agent invoking a paid tool.
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 front-loaded with purpose and then payment mechanics, with little wasted text. The technical payment details are dense but necessary for correct invocation.
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?
For a paid read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers the critical payment and error behavior thoroughly. It is slightly incomplete because it does not describe the return shape of the event digest or explicitly contrast with the sibling sample tool.
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 80%, so most parameters are already documented in the schema. The description clarifies that ticker or CIK identifies the target, but adds little semantic detail for forms, limit, or since beyond what the schema already provides.
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 states a specific verb and resource: an event digest of recent SEC EDGAR filings for a ticker or CIK. It is clear what the tool returns conceptually, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling filings_digest_sample tool.
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 gives clear usage context by identifying the tool as paid and explaining the x402 payment flow, including retry behavior after a payment challenge. It does not, however, explain when to use this tool instead of the sibling sample tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Free canned demo of the SEC EDGAR filing digest (AAPL). 10/day/IP. No payment.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Adds real behavioral context beyond the annotations: canned/fixed AAPL data, a 10/day/IP rate limit, and no payment requirement. It doesn't describe what the digest contains or how truncation/limits manifest in output, but the safety profile is already covered by readOnlyHint.
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?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then constraints, then cost. Nothing redundant.
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?
For a no-parameter, no-output-schema demo tool, it covers purpose, data scope, quotas, and cost. What's missing is a hint of the digest's content/shape, which matters since there is no output schema.
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?
Zero parameters, so baseline 4 applies. The description usefully explains the absence of parameters by noting the ticker is fixed to AAPL in a canned demo.
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?
States a specific resource (SEC EDGAR filing digest) and scope (free canned demo, AAPL only), which separates it from the general sibling filings_digest by implication. It never names the sibling, so full differentiation is left to inference.
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 'free canned demo' framing and per-IP quota make the intended use (trying the digest without payment) clear. It stops short of explicitly telling the agent to call filings_digest for real or non-AAPL data.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
filings_digestfilings_digest_sample
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.