Skip to main content
Glama

Edgar

by io.github.pipeworx-io
OverviewAdmin

Sponsor To Filer

sponsor_to_filer
Read-onlyIdempotent

Resolve an organization NAME — especially a clinical-trial sponsor, drug developer, or operating subsidiary — to the US-listed public FILER that reports it (ticker + SEC CIK). Built for the join that plain ticker/name lookup fails: trial registries (ClinicalTrials.gov) name operating subsidiaries ("Merck Sharp and Dohme"), while SEC names the listed parent ("Merck & Co", MRK). This tool bridges that gap and, crucially, tells you WHY a name does not resolve instead of collapsing every miss to "not found". Returns a status: "resolved" (name is itself a US-listed filer), "resolved_via_parent" (name is a subsidiary; resolved to its listed parent, with evidence + confidence), "us_registrant_unlisted" (has an SEC CIK but no public listing and no listed parent — typically a private company that filed a Form D or draft registration), or "no_us_registrant" (no US SEC presence at all — typically a non-US-listed or foreign private company). Use before joining trial sponsors to public financials, ownership, or filings.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
sponsorYesOrganization name to resolve — a trial sponsor, drug developer, or company name, e.g. "Merck Sharp and Dohme", "Lexeo Therapeutics", "Dizal Pharmaceuticals".

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / examples
      Added value: +[
+  {
+    "sponsor": "Merck Sharp and Dohme"
+  },
+  {
+    "sponsor": "Lexeo Therapeutics"
+  }
+]
  2. Added

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations (read-only, open-world, idempotent), the description discloses key behavioral traits: it returns four distinct statuses ('resolved', 'resolved_via_parent', 'us_registrant_unlisted', 'no_us_registrant'), explains what each means, and emphasizes that it explains why a name does not resolve instead of just returning 'not found'. This goes well beyond 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 front-loaded with the main purpose and efficiently covers key details. While verbose, every sentence is informative and necessary to fully convey the tool's unique value and behavior. It could be slightly shorter but is well-structured.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description fully explains the return values and their meanings. It also provides the problem context and use case, making the tool's purpose and behavior completely clear. No additional context is needed for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The input schema already describes the single 'sponsor' parameter with 100% coverage and examples. The description adds value by clarifying the types of names accepted (trial sponsors, drug developers, subsidiaries) and providing concrete examples, enriching understanding beyond the schema alone.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: resolving an organization name (especially clinical-trial sponsors) to the US-listed public filer (ticker + CIK). It explicitly differentiates itself from plain ticker/name lookup by addressing the subsidiary-parent naming gap, making its specific use case clear.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description explains when to use this tool: for joining trial sponsors to public financials when plain lookups fail. It provides context about the problem (trial registries using subsidiary names, SEC using parent names) but does not explicitly compare with sibling tools like 'edgar_ticker_to_cik' or 'resolve_entity', though the distinct purpose is implied.

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
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources