Search SEC EDGAR full-text for filings.
Args:
company_name: Issuer name or keyword.
form_type: Filing form (e.g. '10-K', '10-Q', '8-K').
date_from: Earliest filing date (YYYY-MM-DD).
limit: Max results (1-100, default 25).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| date_from | No | ||
| form_type | No | ||
| company_name | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It never mentions SEC EDGAR rate limits (a well-known constraint), authentication needs, pagination, or result ordering. Without annotations, a mutation-free search still needs more behavioral context than provided.
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?
Front-loaded purpose sentence followed by a compact Args block; every line earns its place. The args-list formatting is boilerplate but not wasteful, and nothing is buried.
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 four-param search with no output schema and no annotations, the parameter documentation is adequate, but the description says nothing about the return shape, result ordering, or how results relate to the sibling filing-retrieval tool. Minimum viable but with clear gaps.
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 coverage is 0%, so the description must document all parameters, and it does: company_name as issuer/keyword, form_type with concrete examples ('10-K', '10-Q', '8-K'), date_from format (YYYY-MM-DD), and limit range/ceilings (1-100, default 25). This meaningfully compensates for the empty schema descriptions, though it omits what company_name accepts beyond keyword.
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 verb and resource: 'Search SEC EDGAR full-text for filings.' An agent understands this is a full-text search over SEC filings, distinguishing it from sibling retrieval tools like mcp_get_sec_filing. It stops short of explicitly naming which sibling to use instead, so it doesn't reach a 5.
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?
No guidance on when to use this versus mcp_get_sec_filing, mcp_search_companies, or the other lookup tools. There are no stated prerequisites or exclusions despite the description sitting next to nine siblings, several of which are also SEC/entity searches.
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.