Fintel Discovery — Financial Intelligence for AI Agents

Search SEC EDGAR — 13F Institutional Holdings

SearchEdgar13F

Read-onlyIdempotent

    Search SEC EDGAR for 13F-HR institutional holdings filings by institution
    name. Returns filing date, entity name, period of report, and accession
    number. Any institution managing more than $100M in equity must file
    quarterly 13Fs — this reveals their fund strategies and product usage.

    Use this tool when:
    - You want to see what funds or ETFs a firm holds in their portfolios
    - You are researching an institution's investment strategy from public filings
    - You need a list of 13F filings for a specific manager over a date range

    Supports start_date and end_date filtering (YYYY-MM-DD format).
    Source: SEC EDGAR full-text search 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

A3.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive annotations, the description discloses the data source (SEC EDGAR full-text search API), the return fields, and that no API key is required. It does not cover pagination or rate limits, so it is not a 5.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is well organized: purpose, return fields, business context, bulleted use cases, and a closing source/requirement note. It is slightly longer than necessary and the use-case list overlaps somewhat with the opening sentence, but it remains readable and front-loaded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a search tool with output schema and safety annotations, the description covers source, key requirement, filters, and return fields. It is incomplete around sibling differentiation—especially that Get13FHoldings is the right follow-up for actual holdings—and omits any pagination or result-limit caveats.

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 prose adds semantic framing for the central parameters—institution name and start/end date filters, including the date format. The nested schema already documents all fields comprehensively, so the description's contribution beyond the schema is modest, and the 0% top-level coverage signal is offset by the rich $defs descriptions.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The opening line states a specific action and scope: search SEC EDGAR for 13F-HR filings by institution name, and enumerates the returned fields. It stops short of a 5 because it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like GetEdgarCompanyFilings or Get13FHoldings.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description has an explicit 'Use this tool when' block with concrete scenarios, which is better than most tools. However, the first bullet ('see what funds or ETFs a firm holds') overstates what this tool returns—it returns filing metadata, not holdings—and no alternative (Get13FHoldings) is suggested for the holdings use case.

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?