Company metadata by ticker or CIK: legal name, SIC industry classification, exchanges listed, fiscal year end. Use this when the user wants to know who/what a company is, before drilling into filings.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ticker_or_cik | Yes | Either a stock ticker (e.g. 'MSFT') or a CIK number. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, description must fully disclose behavior. It lists returned metadata fields but does not mention error handling, rate limits, or any prerequisites. Adequate but has gaps.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with core functionality, no wasted words. Efficient and clear.
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?
For a simple lookup tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, and return fields. Could explicitly state return format (e.g., JSON object) but this is minor.
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%, and description adds value by explaining the parameter accepts ticker or CIK and listing the metadata fields returned. This goes beyond the schema's simple string description.
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?
Description clearly states it retrieves company metadata by ticker or CIK, listing specific fields (legal name, SIC industry, exchanges, fiscal year end). It differentiates from siblings (edgar_get_8k, edgar_get_facts, etc.) by focusing on basic company info, not filings.
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?
Explicitly says 'Use this when the user wants to know who/what a company is, before drilling into filings', providing clear context. However, does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools for other needs.
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.
Each tool has a distinct and clearly defined purpose: retrieving 8-K events, company metadata, financial facts, full filing text, and search over filings. There is no overlap or ambiguity.
All tools follow the consistent pattern 'edgar_<verb>_<noun>', using snake_case and descriptive verbs (get, read, search). No mixing of conventions.
With 5 tools, the server covers the key operations for interacting with SEC EDGAR filings and company data without being overly sparse or bloated. The scope is well-matched.
The tools cover the primary use cases: company lookup, filing search, financial facts, material events, and full filing retrieval. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no direct tool for specific form type summary), but the set is functional and lacks dead ends.