SEC EDGAR MCP: search, preview, purchase filings. x402 USDC on Polygon. xpay + Cloud Run upstream.
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Average 4.7/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.
Each tool has a distinct, non-overlapping purpose: search_filings for discovery, get_filing_sample for free preview, and purchase_filing for paid full data. Descriptions clearly differentiate them.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (search_filings, get_filing_sample, purchase_filing), making the set predictable.
Three tools are appropriate for this focused server: discovery, evaluation, and purchase. This is well-scoped and not overly large or small.
The tool set covers the complete workflow for accessing SEC filings: search/discover, preview sample, and purchase full data. No obvious gaps given the server's specific purpose.
get_filing_sampleAInspectFree preview of one SEC filing (agent-friendly compact row from fi_listings_portfolio_compact). [COST: $0] Includes agent_summary and financial_metrics (CompanyFacts-derived) but NOT full alpha_signals / causality_events — those ship only via purchase_filing after x402 payment. Compare with purchase_filing: sample = evaluate quality; purchase = full evidence-backed JSON.
[EXAMPLE ARGUMENTS - MAXIMAL]: {"document_id": "000000708426000023"}
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| document_id | No | document_id from search_filings. Defaults to demo ADM 10-Q (000000708426000023). |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the free cost, the subset of returned data, and that full data requires payment. It does not mention authentication or rate limits, but for a preview tool this is adequate.
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 concise, front-loads the purpose, and uses clear formatting with example arguments. Every sentence adds value, and there is no waste.
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?
Given the tool has an output schema, the description appropriately focuses on what is included/excluded without needing to detail return values. It references sibling tools and provides enough context for an agent to make a correct decision.
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 description adds value beyond the input schema by providing example arguments (minimal and maximal) and explaining that document_id defaults to a demo filing. Schema coverage is 100%, and the description reinforces the parameter's purpose.
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 it is a free preview of one SEC filing, listing exactly what is included (agent_summary, financial_metrics) and what is not (alpha_signals, causality_events). It differentiates from the sibling tool purchase_filing by specifying evaluation vs. full purchase.
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 explicitly tells when to use this tool: to evaluate quality before purchasing. It compares with purchase_filing, states it's free, and provides example arguments including a default demo, giving clear usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
purchase_filingAInspectPurchase and deliver one full SEC filing row from fi_listings_portfolio (MPP v1.0 x402). [COST: xpay per-call + on-chain USDC data price (see FINANCE_FILING_PRICE_USD)] Full JSON includes alpha_signals with evidence_verified causality_events and financial_metrics from SEC CompanyFacts. Do NOT return agent_bundle or internal pipeline fields.
[AGENTIC WORKFLOW — mandatory 2-step 402 flow]: STEP 1: Call with document_id and network only; leave tx_hash EMPTY. STEP 2: Broadcast the exact transaction_payload on-chain (polygon USDC default). STEP 3: Call again with the same document_id, network, and confirmed tx_hash (66 chars).
[EXAMPLE ARGUMENTS - MINIMAL (Step 1 — payment info)]: {"document_id": "000000708426000023", "network": "polygon"}
"document_id": "000000708426000023", "network": "polygon", "tx_hash": "0x1234567890abcdef1234567890abcdef1234567890abcdef1234567890abcdef" }
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| network | No | Blockchain network. Default polygon (USDC). Also supports base. | polygon |
| tx_hash | No | Transaction hash. LEAVE EMPTY on first call to receive 402 payment instructions. | |
| document_id | Yes | document_id from search_filings or get_filing_sample. |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: the 402 payment flow, cost, return fields (including alpha_signals), and what is excluded (agent_bundle, internal pipeline fields). It also explains the two-step call pattern.
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 well-structured with sections for cost, workflow, and examples. It is front-loaded with the main purpose. While effective, it could be slightly more concise by removing some redundant details.
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?
Given the complexity of the tool (multi-step 402 payment), the description covers all necessary context: workflow, cost, return format, constraints, and output schema via example. It is complete enough for an agent to use correctly.
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 input schema has 100% coverage, but the description adds significant meaning beyond schema: it clarifies the role of tx_hash in the workflow, provides default values for network, and offers minimal and maximal example arguments that illustrate usage.
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 purchases and delivers a full SEC filing row, specifying the source (fi_listings_portfolio) and version. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like search_filings and get_filing_sample by focusing on purchase and delivery.
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 step-by-step instructions for the 402 payment flow, including when to leave tx_hash empty and when to provide it. It mentions cost and network options, but does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or provide direct comparisons with siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
search_filingsAInspectPRIMARY discovery tool — lightweight catalog over 10k+ SEC filings (fi_listings_portfolio). [COST: low xpay per-call fee] Does NOT return alpha_signals, causality_events, or financial_metrics (use get_filing_sample / purchase_filing). Always returns agent_readiness_score (higher = better structured data) and edgar_url.
Required: at least one of ticker, form_type, company_name, fiscal_period, cik (avoids full-table scans).
Agent workflow after this call:
Shortlist by agent_readiness_score and optional agent_one_liner
get_filing_sample(document_id) — free preview
purchase_filing(document_id) — paid full JSON (x402)
[EXAMPLE ARGUMENTS - MINIMAL]: {"ticker": "AAPL", "limit": 5}
"ticker": "ADM", "form_type": "10-Q", "company_name": "Archer", "fiscal_period": "2026Q1", "min_agent_readiness_score": 70, "limit": 20, "offset": 0, "include_one_liner": true }
[EXAMPLE ARGUMENTS - PAGINATION (page 2)]: {"ticker": "MSFT", "form_type": "10-K", "limit": 10, "offset": 10}
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cik | No | SEC CIK prefix (digits, e.g. 0000320193). | |
| limit | No | Page size (1–100). Default 10 keeps payloads small for LLM context. | |
| offset | No | Skip rows for pagination (e.g. 10 for page 2 when limit=10). | |
| ticker | No | Ticker prefix, case-insensitive (e.g. AAPL, MSFT). At least one filter required. | |
| form_type | No | SEC form: 10-K, 10-Q, 8-K, etc. | |
| company_name | No | Substring match on company_name (e.g. Apple, Archer-Daniels). | |
| fiscal_period | No | Fiscal period label (e.g. 2026Q1, 2025FY). | |
| include_one_liner | No | If true, adds agent_one_liner (~1 sentence) per row for triage without calling get_filing_sample. Slightly heavier response. | |
| min_agent_readiness_score | No | Minimum agent_readiness_score (0–100). Use 70+ for production-quality rows. |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
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 cost ('low xpay per-call fee'), limitations (no certain data), pagination behavior, and required filters. It could be more explicit about rate limits or idempotency, but overall it is transparent.
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 well-structured but somewhat verbose due to three examples. However, the structure (summary, cost, limitations, requirements, workflow, examples) is clear and each sentence adds value. The length is justified by the tool's complexity.
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?
Given the complexity (9 parameters, no required, output schema exists), the description covers purpose, exclusions, cost, required filters, pagination, and integration with siblings. It mentions key output fields and the workflow, making it comprehensive.
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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds significant value beyond schema by explaining constraints (e.g., 'Default 10 keeps payloads small for LLM context'), providing examples, and clarifying the effect of parameters like include_one_liner and min_agent_readiness_score.
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 it is a 'PRIMARY discovery tool' for searching SEC filings, using specific verbs and resource references. It distinguishes from siblings by explicitly stating what it does NOT return and directing to get_filing_sample/purchase_filing for other data.
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 when-to-use guidance: lightweight catalog vs. advanced tools. It specifies required filter conditions ('at least one of ticker, form_type...') and outlines the post-call workflow (shortlist, sample, purchase).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!
Sign in to create a connector for this server.