SiteCheck Agent Intel & Dev

Full-text search of US SEC EDGAR filings: matching filings

agent_intel_sec_edgar_filings_search

Read-only

Full-text search of US SEC EDGAR filings (SEC public index): matching filings with company name, CIK, form type (10-K, 10-Q, 8-K, 4 and others), filing date and a link to the filing index. Optional form type and date range; up to 10 results. Full-text only: no financial figures are extracted. Price: $0.003 in USDC per successful call, paid with x402 (Base, Solana or Arc); failed calls are not charged.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "q": "<q>"
    },
    "name": "agent_intel_sec_edgar_filings_search"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`q`	Yes	Phrase or keywords, 2 to 100 characters
`days`	No	Look back this many days, 1 to 365 (default 30)
`form`	No	Optional form type such as 8-K, 10-K, 10-Q, 4
`limit`	No	How many results, 1 to 10 (default 5)

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`q`	No
`to`	No
`form`	No
`from`	No
`note`	No
`source`	No
`results`	No
`checkedAt`	No
`totalMatches`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 23, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds material behavior beyond that: a per-successful-call price of $0.003 USDC, the accepted payment rails (x402 on Base, Solana, Arc), and that failed calls are not charged — critical for an agent deciding whether to invoke. Rate limits and latency expectations are not mentioned.

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?

Everything is packed into a tight paragraph that leads with the capability and the returned fields, then adds scope limits and pricing. No sentence is filler, and the 'Full-text only' caveat and price are placed where a reader will actually see them.

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?

For a four-parameter read-only search, the description covers capability, output fields, result cap, a key limitation, and the billing model. With an output schema present and full schema coverage, nothing needed for correct invocation is missing.

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%, with each of the four parameters already documented including ranges and defaults. The description restates the same facts (form type, date range, up to 10 results) without adding syntax, default, or formatting guidance beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ('Full-text search of US SEC EDGAR filings') and enumerates the returned fields (company name, CIK, form type, filing date, index link), so an agent knows exactly what this returns. No sibling tool in the list covers SEC EDGAR, so there is no ambiguity to resolve.

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?

It states clear operating conditions: form type and date range are optional, results cap at 10, and it is full-text only with no financial figures extracted — a useful when-not signal. It stops short of naming an alternative tool to use when financial figures are actually needed.

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

All SiteCheck Agent Intel & Dev tools Inspect

Try in Browser

Claude Code, inside the Godot 4 editorFlockbay puts an AI agent in the real Godot 4 editor: it writes GDScript, runs your game and fixes what breaks. Free, or bring your own Claude Code or Codex.flockbay.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?