search_filingsFull-text search across SEC filings (risk factors, MD&A, disclosures). Falls back to recent-filing listing if the search index is unreachable.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| form | No | SEC form filter, e.g. 10-K (default 10-K) | 10-K |
| limit | No | Max results (default 10, max 40) | |
| query | Yes | Full-text query, e.g. 'risk factors' | |
| ticker | No | Restrict to a company's ticker, e.g. AAPL |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context the annotations don't: the fallback to a recent-filing listing when the search index is unreachable, which materially changes what the agent will receive. It omits ranking/pagination behavior, keeping it short of 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.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two tight sentences with zero filler. The primary capability is front-loaded and the fallback caveat follows, making it easy to scan.
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 four-parameter read-only search with no output schema, the description covers purpose, scope, and the important degraded-mode behavior. Return-shape details (result fields, ordering) are absent but are the only notable gap.
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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents query, ticker, form, and limit (including defaults and the max-40 cap). The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the general search scope, so the 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 (full-text search) and resource (SEC filings), plus the content types covered (risk factors, MD&A, disclosures). An agent can distinguish it from get_filing_text or list_filings by the 'across filings' scope, though no sibling is named explicitly.
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?
No when-to-use guidance: it never says to prefer this over get_filing_text (single filing) or list_filings (enumerate filings), nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. The only conditional statement concerns internal fallback behavior, not tool selection.
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.