Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Kaleidoscope MCP (SEC & financial data)

by io.kscope.mcp
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Material Contracts (filed agreements — parties, terms, clause types)

material_contracts
Read-onlyIdempotent

A company's filed agreements — every EX-10 material contract and EX-2.1 M&A agreement it filed or signed as a party — with counterparties (companies and people), dates, term, amount and its basis, governing law, and which clause types each agreement contains (change of control, non-competition, termination, indemnification, ...). Same data as Kaleidoscope Console's Material Contracts report.

Filters: since / as_of (filing date), agreement_types (e.g. 'credit_agreement', 'employment_agreement', 'license_agreement', 'merger_agreement', 'supply_agreement', 'lease_agreement'), families ('credit', 'employment', 'commercial', 'ma', 'equity', 'capital_markets', 'real_estate', 'governance', ...), has_clause (clause_type keys from clause_facet, e.g. 'change_of_control_definition', 'non_compete', 'non_solicit_employee'; clause_match any|all) and counterparty (name substring).

Each agreement lists clauses [{type, label, group, n, has_passages}], grouped substantive-first. Only merger agreements carry clause passages today; other types name the clause type only — read the text with get_filing(accession, exhibit=filename). Before 2016 only agreements with clause headings have clause types. clause_facet counts agreements per clause type across everything matching the other filters (use its keys in has_clause; the most common clause_facet_limit types, default 60 — clause_types_total says how many exist); type_facet does the same per agreement type.

Amounts are as written in the agreement with their basis (total / annual / per-unit, ...) and direction; 'undisclosed' / 'redacted' when withheld. For an M&A agreement the amount is often a termination fee, not the deal value — use company_deals for deals.

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": "material_contracts"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
as_ofNoYYYY-MM-DD — only agreements filed on or before (point in time). Default today.
limitNoAgreements per page (max 100).
sinceNoYYYY-MM-DD — agreements filed on or after.
offsetNo
familiesNoreporting families: credit, employment, commercial, ma, equity, capital_markets, real_estate, governance, fund_management, other.
company_idNomars company UUID (instead of ticker_or_cik).
has_clauseNoclause_type keys (see clause_facet).
clause_matchNoAgreement must contain any (default) or all of has_clause.any
counterpartyNoKeep agreements with a party whose name contains this text.
ticker_or_cikNoTicker or CIK.
agreement_typesNoagreement_type keys (see type_facet).
clause_facet_limitNoMax clause types in clause_facet (most common first; 0 = all).
include_amendmentsNo
include_unverifiedNoInclude integrity 'warn' rows (default: verified + vouched only).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, it discloses real coverage caveats: only merger agreements carry clause passages today, and before 2016 only agreements with clause headings have clause types. It also explains amount semantics ('undisclosed'/'redacted' when withheld) and that the default excludes integrity 'warn' rows, which the annotations do not convey.

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?

It is dense but well organized: what the data is, then filters, then record shape and caveats, then amount semantics. Almost every clause earns its place, though the facet paragraph mixes several ideas (clause_facet, type_facet, limits, clause_types_total) in one long span that could be split for faster scanning.

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 14-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the returned record shape, the facet mechanics, the temporal and historical coverage limits, pagination intent via the schema, and the M&A amount pitfall. An agent has enough to call it correctly and interpret the response without opening a schema.

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?

Schema coverage is 86%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine meaning: has_clause must use keys returned by clause_facet, clause_match toggles any/all, and clause_facet_limit/type_facet are facet-generation controls whose keys feed back into the filters. That facet-to-filter relationship is not visible in the bare schema.

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 the specific resource (filed EX-10 material contracts and EX-2.1 M&A agreements) and enumerates exactly what each record carries: counterparties, dates, term, amount and basis, governing law, and clause types. It also draws the boundary against siblings by noting company_deals covers deal value and get_filing holds the passages, so an agent can distinguish it from adjacent tools.

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?

It gives clear routing rules: 'use company_deals for deals' when the amount is a termination fee rather than deal value, and 'read the text with get_filing(accession, exhibit=filename)' when clause passages are needed. What it lacks is an upfront statement of the scenario that should trigger this tool at all (e.g. screening for change-of-control exposure), leaving the general when-to-use case to inference from the filter list.

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

All Kaleidoscope MCP (SEC & financial data) 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