Get SEC filings (8-K, 10-Q, etc.) for a company by ticker symbol.
Use this to see what filings are available for a company, with dates
and accession numbers. Does not include guidance extraction - use
get_guidance for that.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ticker | Yes | ||
| filing_type | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns dates and accession numbers, and that it does not include guidance extraction. However, it does not mention other behavioral traits such as whether all filings or only recent ones are returned, pagination, rate limits, or any authentication requirements. The provided information is useful but not comprehensive.
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?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and uses clear, concise language. The additional mention of the limitation and alternative tool is placed at the end without unnecessary filler. Every sentence earns its place.
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 tool with only two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose, expected output fields (dates, accession numbers), and a key exclusions. It lacks details on return format (e.g., list vs. single object) and error handling, but these are partly inferable. Given the simplicity of the tool, it is reasonably complete.
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?
The schema has no descriptions (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It mentions 'by ticker symbol' and lists example filing types (8-K, 10-Q, etc.), which helps interpret the ticker and filing_type parameters. However, it does not explain the valid values for filing_type (beyond examples) or the default behavior when filing_type is null. This is partial compensation but not complete.
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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Get SEC filings (8-K, 10-Q, etc.) for a company by ticker symbol.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and explicitly differentiates from get_guidance by noting it does not include guidance extraction. This makes the purpose unambiguous and distinguishes it from at least one sibling.
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?
The description provides explicit usage context: 'Use this to see what filings are available for a company, with dates and accession numbers.' It also states a clear exclusion and alternative: 'Does not include guidance extraction - use get_guidance for that.' This gives the agent both when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance, with a specific alternative tool.
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 targets a distinct aspect of SEC filings (company info, filings list, detail, guidance, sector, signals, transcripts, search, earnings calendar, sector listing). No two tools have overlapping purposes.
Most tools follow a 'get_<noun>' pattern (e.g., get_filings, get_guidance), but list_sectors and search_filings deviate. The naming is still clear and intuitive.
10 tools is well-scoped for a filing API—covers all major retrieval needs without redundancy or excess.
The tool surface covers the full lifecycle of filing retrieval: discovery (search, sector, calendar), listing, detail, and specialized extraction (guidance, signals, transcripts). No obvious gaps for the domain.