Skip to main content
Glama

Sec Form D

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Form D Offering Detail

form_d_offering_detail
Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve and normalize one official Form D XML filing by SEC accession number. Returns offering amounts, first sale, investors, exemptions, securities, issuer identity, executives/related persons, commissions, and exact SEC provenance.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
accession_numberYesSEC accession number, e.g. 0002036057-26-000002.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
cikYes
filing_urlYes
filing_dateNo
issuer_nameNo
is_amendmentYes
total_remainingNo
accession_numberYes
total_amount_soldNo
total_offering_amountNo

Schema Changelog

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

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and no destruction. The description adds context by specifying 'normalize' and listing the exact fields returned (offering amounts, first sale, etc.), which goes beyond the annotation hints. No contradictions.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with action and input, then listing outputs. No unnecessary words or repetitions.

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 simple tool with 1 parameter and an output schema, the description fully covers the tool's purpose and return value. No gaps.

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 coverage is 100%, and the schema description already explains the parameter. The description adds no new detail about the parameter beyond 'by SEC accession number'. Baseline score 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 clearly states the tool retrieves and normalizes one official Form D XML filing by SEC accession number, listing the specific data points returned. This is a specific verb+resource with clear scope, distinguishing it from sibling tools like form_d_amendment_chains or form_d_search_issuers.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies use when needing a single Form D filing by accession number, but does not explicitly state when to use or not use this tool, nor does it mention alternatives. The guidance is adequate but minimal.

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

All Sec Form D 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.

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Many tools have overlapping purposes, e.g., ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded all route questions to data sources with minor differences. Form D tools and meta-tools (discover_tools, suggest_questions) further blur boundaries, making it hard for an agent to select the right tool.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tools follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern (e.g., resolve_entity, validate_claim, subscribe). However, there are minor deviations like bet_research and deep_research without clear verbs, and the ask_pipeworx variants use irregular suffixes.

Tool Count2/5

With 39 tools, the server is over-scoped, including many utility and meta-tools (remember, recall, forget, list_subscriptions) that inflate the count beyond the core domain (SEC Form D and data lookups). A more focused set of 10-15 tools would be more coherent.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers a very broad range of data sources and actions, including SEC filings, prediction markets, entity profiling, and AI visibility. However, the completeness is uneven; for example, there are many Form D tools but few for other SEC forms, and some areas like weather or clinical trials are only accessible via ask_pipeworx.

Resources