Skip to main content
Glama

Edgar

by io.github.pipeworx-io
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Filer To Sponsors

filer_to_sponsors
Read-onlyIdempotent

The REVERSE of sponsor_to_filer: given a US-listed public FILER (parent company), list its operating subsidiaries as disclosed in Exhibit 21 of its most recent 10-K (Item 601(b)(21) — "significant subsidiaries"). Built for the same trial-sponsor/entity-resolution join, run the other direction: instead of ~10 calls guessing candidate subsidiary names and confirming each via sponsor_to_filer, get the parent's full disclosed subsidiary list (with jurisdiction of incorporation) in one call, straight from SEC — e.g. Merck (MRK/CIK 310158) -> "Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC" among hundreds of others. Pass name_filter (case-insensitive substring) to check whether a specific candidate name is among the subsidiaries without reading the whole list. Every result carries provenance (accession number, filing date, exhibit URL) so the join is auditable. Smaller filers or ones with no significant subsidiaries can genuinely have no Exhibit 21 — status distinguishes that from a lookup failure. Foreign private issuers (20-F filers) are not yet covered.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
cikNoAlias for `ticker_or_cik` — the spelling edgar_company_concept and edgar_company_facts use for the same thing. Takes a ticker or a CIK.
limitNoMax subsidiaries to return (1-500, default 200). Large parents can disclose 500+.
tickerNoAlias for `ticker_or_cik` — the spelling edgar_fund_holdings and edgar_ticker_to_cik use for the same thing. Takes a ticker or a CIK.
name_filterNoOptional case-insensitive substring to filter subsidiary names by, e.g. "Sharp & Dohme" to check whether that entity is among the parent's disclosed subsidiaries. Subsidiary names in Exhibit 21 use "&", not "and".
ticker_or_cikNoREQUIRED (or one of its aliases `cik` / `ticker`). The PARENT company's ticker (e.g. "MRK") or CIK (e.g. "310158"). Tickers are auto-resolved to CIKs.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed4 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / cik
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Alias for `ticker_or_cik` — the spelling edgar_company_concept and edgar_company_facts use for the same thing. Takes a ticker or a CIK.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / ticker
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Alias for `ticker_or_cik` — the spelling edgar_fund_holdings and edgar_ticker_to_cik use for the same thing. Takes a ticker or a CIK.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • changedInput schema / properties / ticker_or_cik / description
      Previous value: -"The PARENT company's ticker (e.g. \"MRK\") or CIK (e.g. \"310158\"). Tickers are auto-resolved to CIKs."New value: +"REQUIRED (or one of its aliases `cik` / `ticker`). The PARENT company's ticker (e.g. \"MRK\") or CIK (e.g. \"310158\"). Tickers are auto-resolved to CIKs."
    • changedInput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "ticker_or_cik"
-]New value: +[]
  2. Added

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already establish readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive behavior, and the description adds substantial beyond-annotation context: results carry provenance (accession number, filing date, exhibit URL), the status distinguishes 'no Exhibit 21' from lookup failure, data comes straight from SEC, and subsidiary names use '&' not 'and.' No contradiction with annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a dense single paragraph, but it is front-loaded with the core function and reverse relationship, then moves through the use case, a concrete example, filter behavior, provenance, and limitations. It is longer than minimal, but each sentence carries useful information and there is no filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a complex SEC-lookup tool with no output schema, the description covers what the caller receives, how to audit results via provenance, how to filter, and a known coverage gap (Foreign private issuers). An agent has enough context to select the tool and interpret unusual outcomes like a missing Exhibit 21.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the schema already documents aliases, the limit range, and name_filter's case-insensitive substring behavior. The description reinforces the aliases and the use of name_filter, but adds little parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a specific verb and resource: given a US-listed public filer/parent company, list its operating subsidiaries disclosed in Exhibit 21 of the most recent 10-K. It also explicitly frames itself as the reverse of sponsor_to_filer, clearly distinguishing it from the closest sibling tool.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly contrasts this tool with sponsor_to_filer, explaining that this is the one-call direction for getting a parent's full subsidiary list, versus '~10 calls guessing candidate subsidiary names and confirming each via sponsor_to_filer.' It also gives the specific name_filter use case for checking a candidate entity, and notes the Foreign private issuer exclusion.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Edgar toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources