Full-text search across ALL SEC EDGAR filings (EFTS) — find filings mentioning a keyword/phrase across companies. Extends the existing per-company SEC integration with cross-company filing search. Source: SEC EDGAR full-text search (public-domain, no key).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| q | Yes | Full-text search query (e.g. 'artificial intelligence', 'quantum computing') | |
| limit | No | Max results (1-50, default 10) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It adds useful context by noting the source is public-domain and requires no key. However, it does not disclose potential rate limits, response format, or limitations (e.g., date filtering, pagination), so basic transparency is present but not rich.
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 three sentences, each adding value: the first states the core function, the second differentiates from per-company search, and the third gives source/auth context. It is front-loaded with the most important information and contains no filler.
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 simple search tool with no output schema, the description covers the purpose, scope, differentiation, and authentication. It does not mention return value details or behavioral limitations, but given the simplicity and full parameter schema coverage, it is reasonably complete.
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 100%, with both parameters (q and limit) already described in the schema. The tool description adds little beyond the schema, repeating the keyword/phrase concept but not providing extra context about query syntax or result behavior. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 clearly states the tool performs 'full-text search across ALL SEC EDGAR filings' and explicitly differentiates from the existing per-company SEC integration. The verb 'search' with a specific resource and scope makes the purpose unmistakable and distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_filings.
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 says it 'Extends the existing per-company SEC integration with cross-company filing search,' which gives clear context on when to use this tool instead of the per-company alternative. However, it does not explicitly name sibling tools or state when not to use it, missing the full when/when-not guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Several tool groups have overlapping purposes: fda_drug_labels vs health_drug_search, fda_recalls vs health_recalls, fx_official_rates vs treasury_fx_rates, treasury_debt vs us_debt_current, and get_gdp vs get_bea_gdp. These near-duplicates create real ambiguity for an agent deciding which tool to call.
Names mix verb-led styles (get_, search_, compare_, screen_) with domain-led styles (fx_, treasury_, uk_, health_, eurostat_, datausa_). Within the same domain, similar actions use different patterns (get_gdp vs eurostat_gdp vs imf_indicator), making the set feel inconsistent and hard to predict.
75 tools is extreme for any MCP server, especially when many tools are redundant or cover unrelated domains (weather, earthquakes, scholarly search, air quality) outside the stated SEC/economics/demographics/FX focus. This overwhelms agents and burdens context windows.
Core domains like SEC financials, major economic indicators, basic demographics, and current FX rates are well covered. However, gaps remain: no historical FX rates, no stock price/quote tool, limited demographic breakdowns, and no ability to fetch full SEC filing text. Some operations end in dead ends.