Fintel Discovery — Financial Intelligence for AI Agents

Search FINRA BrokerCheck — Firms

SearchBrokerCheckFirm

Read-onlyIdempotent

    Search FINRA BrokerCheck for broker-dealer firms by name. Returns firm
    CRD, registration status, city, state, and disclosure flag.

    Use this tool when:
    - You need the CRD number for a broker-dealer firm (e.g. UBS, Raymond James)
    - You want to distinguish between similarly named firms by location
    - You are building a territory map of BD firms in a state

    Source: FINRA BrokerCheck public API. No API key required.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`params`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

The annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context by identifying the public FINRA BrokerCheck API and stating that no API key is required. It does not discuss rate limits or pagination, but that is minor given the annotation coverage.

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?

The description is compact and front-loaded: action, output, use cases, and source line in that order. There is no filler, and each bullet earns its 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 lookup tool with a rich schema and output schema, the description covers purpose, use cases, and access model. It could be slightly more complete by explicitly routing to sibling tools for individual rep searches or detail retrieval, but that omission is not critical.

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?

The input schema shown contains detailed descriptions for the nested parameters, so the prose description is not required to repeat them. The description adds only light emphasis on name and location-related parameters. The schema carries the parameter-semantics burden, which warrants the baseline 3.

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 states a specific verb-resource pair ('Search FINRA BrokerCheck for broker-dealer firms by name') and lists the exact return fields: CRD, registration status, city, state, and disclosure flag. This clearly distinguishes it from the individual-focused and IAPD sibling tools.

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?

Three explicit 'Use this tool when' bullets provide concrete decision contexts: needing a CRD, disambiguating similarly named firms by location, and building a territory map of BD firms. It stops short of naming alternative sibling tools or stating when not to use it.

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

All Fintel Discovery — Financial Intelligence for AI Agents tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Most tools target a distinct resource and action, with clear separation between search and detail tools (e.g., SearchIAPDFirm vs GetIAPDFirmDetail, SearchBrokerCheck vs GetBrokerCheckDetail). A few pairs like SearchBrokerCheck and SearchBrokerCheckFirm could cause momentary confusion, but descriptions clarify individual vs firm scope.

Naming Consistency4/5

The dominant pattern is consistent: Search* for discovery, Get* for retrieval, with CamelCase throughout. Minor deviations like LookupTicker and MapInstrumentIds introduce different verbs, and SearchBrokerCheck does not explicitly signal 'individual' unlike SearchBrokerCheckFirm, but the overall convention remains predictable.

Tool Count2/5

With 32 tools, the surface is quite heavy and exceeds the 25+ threshold for 'too many.' While the financial intelligence domain is broad, several search/detail pairs and overlapping data-source tools could be consolidated to reduce cognitive load for agents.

Completeness4/5

The toolset covers major workflows well: 13F holdings, fund fee comparison, advisor due diligence, macro data, price history, options, and identifier mapping. Minor gaps exist, such as no standalone real-time quote tool, no news/sentiment data, and no direct CUSIP-to-company-name search, but these are workable around.

Resources

Need Help?