Deal Radar

formd_leads

Recent SEC Form D private-placement filings parsed into scored leads (0-100 with reasons): issuer, website and domain when EDGAR has one, industry, related persons and roles, offering amount, amount sold, amount remaining, investor count, use of proceeds, placement agent / broker-dealer with CRD, fund vs operating company, and the sec.gov filing link. Missing values are null. Up to 25 leads per call. Optional date-range backfill of up to 31 days. Costs $0.015 USDC.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "formd_leads"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`scan`	No	Filings scanned before filtering, 5-60, default 40.
`limit`	No	Leads returned, 1-25, default 10.
`states`	No	Comma-separated issuer state codes, e.g. NY,CA. Case-insensitive.
`endDate`	No	YYYY-MM-DD, default today when startDate is set.
`minScore`	No	Minimum lead score 0-100.
`minAmount`	No	Minimum raise in USD (amount sold, else offering size).
`startDate`	No	YYYY-MM-DD. With endDate, backfills that filing-date window via EDGAR full-text search (max 31 days). Omit both for the newest filings.
`industries`	No	Comma-separated words matched against the Form D industry group, the filer's clarification, fund type, and SIC description. Example: Technology, biotechnology.
`excludeFunds`	No	true to drop pooled investment funds.
`excludeAmendments`	No	true to drop D/A amendments.
`placementAgentOnly`	No	true to keep only raises with a placement agent.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 28, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does meaningful work: it discloses the $0.015 USDC cost, a 25-lead cap per call, 31-day backfill limit, and that missing values are null. It still omits payment mechanics (how USDC is charged), failure behavior, and rate limits, 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.

Conciseness5/5

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

Front-loaded with what the tool returns, followed by three tight sentences covering null handling, limits, and cost. The long field enumeration is dense but every clause is informative because there is no output schema to carry it, and no sentence is padding.

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

Completeness4/5

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

There is no output schema, so the description correctly assumes responsibility for describing the return payload, enumerating issuer, industry, amounts, persons, agent/CRD, and the filing link. Combined with full schema coverage of all 11 optional parameters, this is close to complete; the main gap is payment/auth mechanics for a paid endpoint.

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%, so the schema already documents all 11 parameters with defaults and ranges. The description adds only the 'up to 25 leads' and '31 days' constraints, which are already implied by the schema, and otherwise lists return fields rather than parameter meaning. Baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Recent SEC Form D private-placement filings parsed into scored leads (0-100 with reasons).' It is immediately distinguishable from the siblings deal_events_8k (8-K deal events) and ping (health check), and it names the concrete domain object (Form D filings).

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?

It gives operational context: omit startDate/endDate for newest filings, and date-range backfill is capped at 31 days. But it never says when to use this tool versus deal_events_8k, nor does it state prerequisites such as payment or authentication. Usage is implied rather than routed.

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

All Deal Radar tools Inspect

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

Need Help?