sec_edgar_search$0.02 per call — SEC EDGAR full-text search (efts.sec.gov, no key). Find filings by term. Params: q = search term (required); forms = comma list e.g. 10-K,8-K; limit = max hits (default 10). Returns filing date, company, CIK and accession number for each hit.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| q | Yes | Full-text search term (required) | |
| forms | No | Optional form filter, e.g. 10-K,8-K | |
| limit | No | Max hits (default 10) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / formsAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Optional form filter, e.g. 10-K,8-K",
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / properties / limitAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Max hits (default 10)",
+ "type": "number"
+}Input schema / properties / q / descriptionPrevious value: -"JSON or key=value input for the tool"New value: +"Full-text search term (required)"Input schema / requiredAdded value: +[
+ "q"
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does real work: it discloses cost ($0.02 per call), auth requirements (no key), the upstream host, and the return shape (date, company, CIK, accession number). It stops short of pagination or rate-limit behavior, so it is strong but not exhaustive.
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?
Cost is front-loaded, the core capability follows, and the param recap is compressed into one line. Slightly redundant with the schema, but nothing is padded or 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?
There is no output schema, but the description enumerates the returned fields, and with no annotations it covers the cost and auth profile an agent needs before calling. Only pagination and error behavior remain unaddressed for a simple three-param search.
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 100%, so all three parameters are already documented in the schema. The description's param recap (q required, forms comma list, limit default 10) largely restates the schema, adding only the comma-separated form example, which is already present as well. Baseline 3 applies.
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 ('SEC EDGAR full-text search', 'Find filings by term') and pins the exact backend (efts.sec.gov). No sibling tool touches SEC filings, so disambiguation is trivially satisfied.
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?
Usage is implied by 'Find filings by term', but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or routing to an alternative for company-level lookups. Given the sibling set is entirely unrelated domains, the gap is low-impact but still a gap.
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.