Fetch the full text (HTML) of a specific filing by accession number. Useful when the user wants to read the actual content of a 10-K/8-K. Truncates at ~80K characters; use search to narrow first.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cik | No | 10-digit CIK (zero-padded). Used to construct the document URL. | |
| ticker | No | Stock ticker (used to resolve the CIK; pass either this or cik). | |
| accession_number | Yes | Accession number, e.g. '0001564590-24-029333'. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses truncation behavior, which is important. However, with no annotations provided, it does not cover other aspects like error handling, response format, or authentication requirements.
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, no wasted words. Front-loaded with the primary action and resource. 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?
Fairly complete for a 3-parameter tool with no output schema. Covers purpose, use case, and truncation limitation. Could mention error conditions or optional params, but is sufficient.
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 baseline 3 applies. Description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema, just reinforcing accession number usage. No new parameter insights.
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?
The description states it fetches full text HTML of a specific filing by accession number, and mentions usefulness for 10-K/8-K. It is clear but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like edgar_get_8k.
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?
Provides a when-to-use context (reading actual content of 10-K/8-K) and a limitation (truncation at ~80K characters, recommends using search first). Does not specify when not to use or alternatives.
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.