SiteCheck Crypto & Finance

Search the SEC Investment Adviser Public Disclosure

finance_sec_iapd

Read-only

Search the SEC Investment Adviser Public Disclosure (IAPD) database by firm name: CRD number, firm name and other names, SEC adviser (801-) and broker-dealer (8-) numbers, adviser and broker-dealer registration status, whether disclosures (regulatory or legal events) exist, FINRA registrations, branch count, office city/state/country and the IAPD summary URL; plus the total number of matches. Related tools on this server, for a different need: finance_sec_investment_adviser when you need Investment adviser firm record from the SEC IAPD by CRD; finance_sec_form_d when you need latest SEC Form D filings from EDGAR's public search index. Price: $0.002 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": {
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "finance_sec_iapd"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	Yes	Firm name words, e.g. vanguard, blackrock (required)
`page`	No	Page number from 1 (default 1)
`limit`	No	Firms to return, 1 to 50 (default 20)

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	No
`page`	No
`count`	No
`firms`	No
`total`	No
`source`	No
`checkedAt`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 23, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: a per-call price of $0.002 USDC via x402 across Base/Solana/Arc and the fact that failed calls are not charged. That payment/auth detail is exactly the kind of context annotations cannot carry. It stops short of 5 because pagination behavior and result-set size limits (beyond the schema's limit field) are unaddressed.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The purpose is front-loaded correctly, but the middle of the description is a long run-on laundry list of return fields (CRD, firm names, 801-/8- numbers, status, disclosures, FINRA registrations, branch count, city/state/country, URL, match count) that duplicates the existing output schema. That enumeration consumes most of the text without adding selection or invocation value, though the pricing and sibling sentences do earn their place.

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?

For a read-only, three-parameter search over an external database, the definition covers purpose, sibling routing, payment model, and failure charging, and an output schema is present so return values need not be explained. The only real gap is operational guidance on paging through large result sets, which the schema hints at but the description never mentions.

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% and all three parameters (name, page, limit) are documented in the schema with examples, defaults, and ranges. The description adds only the framing 'by firm name', which does not meaningfully extend the schema's own parameter documentation, so the 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 and resource: 'Search the SEC Investment Adviser Public Disclosure (IAPD) database by firm name', and then enumerates the fields returned (CRD, 801-/8- numbers, registration status, disclosures, branch count, office location, IAPD URL). It also names the two sibling tools it is not (finance_sec_investment_adviser, finance_sec_form_d), so an agent can separate it from alternatives without opening a schema.

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 explicitly routes to siblings with conditions ('finance_sec_investment_adviser when you need Investment adviser firm record from the SEC IAPD by CRD; finance_sec_form_d when you need latest SEC Form D filings'), which implicitly frames this tool as the name-based search path. It never states a when-not-to-use condition for this tool itself or notes prerequisites beyond payment, so it falls short of a full 5.

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

All SiteCheck Crypto & Finance tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?