Shibui Finance

SEC Filing Analysis Workflow

load_filing_workflow

Read-onlyIdempotent

Load filing workflow for SEC/EDGAR metadata, 8-K events, 10-K/10-Q reports. REQUIRES get_database_schema then get_query_patterns to be called first (in that order). Call BEFORE writing SQL whenever the user asks about filing dates, filing activity, "who filed", "filed a form", filing frequency, SEC filings, EDGAR, 8-K events, 10-K/10-Q reports, proxy statements, or any query involving the sec_filings table (metadata - when/what type, not transaction detail). For insider transaction detail (shares, prices, cluster buying), use load_insider_workflow instead. Can be combined with other workflow tools.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

TDQS

A4.8/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds critical behavioral context: the prerequisite call order, that it is scoped to metadata not transaction detail, and that it can be combined with other workflows. This goes well beyond the annotations.

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 description is front-loaded with purpose and each sentence adds distinct value. It is longer than typical, but the trigger list and dependency instructions justify the length. Slightly more concise phrasing could improve it, but it remains well-structured and efficient.

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?

Given the tool has no parameters, strong annotations, and an output schema, the description is complete. It covers purpose, prerequisites, usage timing, exclusions, and alternatives, leaving no significant gaps for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 per the rubric. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics but provides extensive context on what queries the tool applies to, which serves as implicit parameter guidance.

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 states a specific verb 'Load' with a clear resource ('filing workflow for SEC/EDGAR metadata, 8-K events, 10-K/10-Q reports') and lists concrete trigger topics. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly contrasting with load_insider_workflow for transaction detail.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance with a long list of triggering queries ('filing dates', 'who filed', 'SEC filings', etc.), states required prerequisite calls in order ('REQUIRES get_database_schema then get_query_patterns'), and names the alternative for insider details ('use load_insider_workflow instead').

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

All Shibui Finance 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

A4.4/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct aspect of stock data workflow: schema discovery, query patterns, raw data access, Excel export, and eight specialized analysis workflows. The load_*_workflow tools are clearly differentiated by domain (earnings, filing, insider, etc.) with explicit usage criteria. There is no real overlap or confusion between tools.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tools follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (get_database_schema, get_query_patterns, load_*_workflow, export_to_excel). The only deviation is 'stock_data_query' which places the noun first rather than the verb, but it remains readable and fits the overall naming style. The consistent use of snake_case and descriptive prefixes makes the set predictable.

Tool Count5/5

With 12 tools, the server is well-scoped for its purpose of comprehensive US stock data analysis. Each tool earns its place: two prerequisite/metadata tools, one query executor, one export utility, and eight distinct workflow loaders covering major analysis types. There is no bloat or redundancy.

Completeness5/5

The tool set provides a complete lifecycle for stock data analysis: schema discovery → query patterns → data query → specialized workflows (backtesting, comparison, earnings, filings, fundamentals, insider, screening, technical) and export. It covers all major query types described in the schema tool and leaves no obvious dead ends; agents can handle a wide range of financial questions.

Resources

Need Help?