Search filings for a company — search by form type, date range, keywords. Use get_filing_types first to see what's available.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Number of filings to return (default 10) | |
| ticker | Yes | Stock ticker symbol | |
| form_type | No | Form type filter (e.g. 10-K, 10-Q, 8-K) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / properties / countRemoved value: -{
- "default": 10,
- "description": "Number of results to return (default: 10)",
- "type": "integer"
-}Input schema / properties / form_typeAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Form type filter (e.g. 10-K, 10-Q, 8-K)",
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / properties / form_typesRemoved value: -{
- "description": "Comma-separated form types (e.g. '10-K,10-Q')",
- "type": "string"
-}Input schema / properties / limitAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Number of filings to return (default 10)",
+ "type": "number"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It lacks details on whether the operation is read-only, pagination behavior (though limit parameter suggests it), error handling, or safety implications. The description only hints at the search nature without deeper transparency.
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 short with two sentences, but the first sentence is a run-on that conflates multiple search facets. It is concise but somewhat incomplete and misleading, reducing effectiveness.
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?
The tool has no output schema and moderate parameter count (3). The description does not explain what the output contains (e.g., filing metadata, links) or how to interpret results. It omits important context like default limit behavior and missing parameters.
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?
The input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions, so baseline is 3. However, the description adds claims about date range and keyword filtering that are not reflected in the parameters, confusing the agent. This introduces noise rather than value.
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 it searches filings for a company and mentions form type, date range, and keywords. However, the input schema only has form_type and no date range or keyword parameters, creating a mismatch. This detracts from clear communication of the tool's actual capabilities.
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 explicitly suggests using get_filing_types first to see available form types, which is helpful guidance. However, it does not provide when-not-to-use instructions or differentiate from other search-oriented sibling tools like batch_query or get_all_financial_data.
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.