Skip to main content
Glama

agentdata-nl

by io.github.DarthSander

relay_edgar_filings

Latest SEC EDGAR filings for any US-listed company for $0.01 per call: 10-K annual reports, 10-Q quarterly reports and 8-K material events, by stock ticker or CIK, sourced live from data.sec.gov. Returns the parsed filing list (company, form type, filing date, direct document URL), filterable with 'since' and 'limit'. Relayed live from a proven upstream source; if the source is down you get a 503 and pay nothing. Pay per call in USDC on Base — no account, no API key.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
cikNoSEC CIK, 1-10 digits. Provide exactly one of ticker or cik.
formYesSEC form type: 10-K annual report, 10-Q quarterly report or 8-K material events
limitNoMaximum filings to return (1-50)
sinceNoOptional inclusive lower bound on filing date, YYYY-MM-DD
tickerNoStock ticker, case-insensitive (e.g. AAPL). Provide exactly one of ticker or cik.

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description covers source (data.sec.gov), live relay, error behavior (503, pay nothing), payment model (USDC on Base, no account), and return format (company, form type, filing date, URL). Lacks rate limits but sufficient.

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 composed of 3-4 concise sentences, front-loaded with the tool's purpose. Each sentence adds unique value: purpose, return details, pricing/error handling. No unnecessary words.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers essential aspects: source, filtering, pricing, error handling, and return fields. Lacks a full output schema description but lists key fields, making it reasonably complete.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds context ('filterable with since and limit', 'provide exactly one of ticker or cik') but does not significantly enhance parameter understanding beyond schema.

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 clearly states the tool retrieves latest SEC EDGAR filings for US-listed companies, listing specific form types (10-K, 10-Q, 8-K) and return fields. This is distinct from sibling tools like relay_crypto_news or web_search.

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?

Provides clear context: use by ticker or CIK, filterable with 'since' and 'limit', pricing $0.01 per call, and error handling (503 if source down, no charge). No explicit exclusion or alternative, but no similar tool exists among siblings.

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

All agentdata-nl 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

A4.1/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Every tool targets a distinct action and domain: country-specific company checks (check_ch_company, check_fr_company, etc.), insolvency checks, crypto signals, x402 network tools, etc. Descriptions are detailed and make boundaries clear, with no two tools appearing to do the same thing.

Naming Consistency5/5

Tool names follow very consistent patterns: 'check_<country>_<entity>' for registers, 'crypto_*' for crypto intelligence, 'x402_*' for x402 network functions, 'screen_*' for screening, and a few free-form names like 'verify_eu_vat' and 'lookup_lei' that still fit the verb_noun style. No mixing of conventions.

Tool Count4/5

39 tools is high but justified by the broad scope: the server aggregates many country-specific checks, insolvency registers, crypto tools, x402 monitoring, and auxiliary functions (like phone number buying, LEI lookup). Each tool serves a clear purpose, and the count is not excessive given the coverage. A slight reduction could be possible by merging some country checks, but overall it's reasonable.

Completeness4/5

The server covers major European company registers (CH, UK, FR, NL, NO, PL, CZ, FI), insolvency checks (NL, FR), sanctions screening, VAT validation, crypto market intelligence, and x402 network tools. It acknowledges gaps (e.g., no German check) and provides fallback tools like 'screen_eu_supplier' and 'file_agent_want'. Minor missing pieces (e.g., Italian company check) keep it from a perfect 5.

Resources