Skip to main content
Glama

US Economic, SEC EDGAR & On-Chain Data (x402)

by net.agentfund

SEC Filings Feed

edgar_filings_feed
Read-onlyIdempotent

Recent SEC filings for a company, newest first, with 8-K item codes translated to plain English.

A general-purpose filings feed: any form type, or a specific set (8-K for material events, 10-K/10-Q for periodic reports, S-1 for new-issue prospectuses, SC 13D/13G for activist and passive stakes). 8-K filings include their item numbers (e.g. "5.02") decoded into a label ("Departure/appointment of directors or officers") rather than leaving you to look up the code.

When to use: monitoring a company's material-event stream, building a filings watchlist, or finding a specific filing type.

When NOT to use: you need the parsed FINANCIAL content of a filing (use edgar_financials) or insider trades (use edgar_insider_transactions).

Args:

  • ticker (string, required): a ticker such as "AAPL", or a bare CIK such as "320193".

  • forms (string[], optional): filter to specific form types, e.g. ["8-K"] or ["10-K","10-Q"]. Omit for all forms.

  • limit (integer, optional, default 20): maximum filings to return (1-100).

Returns structuredContent: { "cik": "0000320193", "entity": "Apple Inc.", "ticker": "AAPL", "count": 1, "filings": [{ "form": "8-K", "filedAt": "2026-08-01", "reportDate": "2026-07-31", "items": [{ "code": "2.02", "label": "Results of operations and financial condition" }], "documentUrl": "https://www.sec.gov/Archives/..." }], "source": "https://www.sec.gov/edgar" }

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
formsNoFilter to these form types, e.g. ["8-K"]. Omit for all forms.
limitNoMaximum filings to return, newest first. Default 20.
tickerYesTicker symbol (e.g. "AAPL") or a bare SEC CIK (e.g. "320193").

Schema Changelog

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

  1. First observed

TDQS

A5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations declare readOnly/idempotent/destructive=false, and the description adds substantial behavioral detail: newest-first ordering, 8-K item code decoding to plain English, ability to filter by form types, and the structured response shape with a concrete example. No contradiction.

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?

Well-structured with a clear summary, usage guidance, structured arg list, and return example. The length is justified by the amount of behavioral and parameter context included; no redundant sentences.

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 no output schema, the description includes a detailed return example showing the exact nested structure (cik, entity, filings array, items with code/label, documentUrl). Combined with sibling differentiation and parameter details, it provides all necessary context for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, but the description enriches parameter understanding by adding usage examples ('AAPL' or bare CIK '320193'), clarifying that forms can be a list like ['8-K'], and stating the default and range for limit. This goes beyond the schema descriptions.

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?

Description opens with 'Recent SEC filings for a company, newest first, with 8-K item codes translated to plain English' – a specific verb+resource+scope. It explicitly distinguishes from siblings by listing form types and pointing to edgar_financials and edgar_insider_transactions as alternatives.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Contains explicit 'When to use' and 'When NOT to use' sections, naming alternative tools (edgar_financials for parsed financial content, edgar_insider_transactions for insider trades). This provides clear context for when this tool is appropriate versus alternatives.

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

All US Economic, SEC EDGAR & On-Chain Data (x402) 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

A4.5/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Every tool targets a distinct resource and action. The macro_* tools each cover one economic indicator, the edgar_* tools cover different SEC filing types, and the onchain_* tools are split by chain scope (single vs multi), asset type, and operation. Even the two data-cleaning tools are clearly distinct (JSON repair vs table parsing). No two tools appear to do the same thing.

Naming Consistency4/5

Names follow a mostly consistent snake_case pattern with domain prefixes: macro_*, edgar_*, onchain_*. The exceptions are bls_cpi (could be macro_cpi) and the utility tools structured_json_repair and tabular_to_json, which break the prefix pattern but are still descriptive and predictable. Overall, the convention is clear with minor deviations.

Tool Count3/5

21 tools is in the 'heavy' range (16-25). However, the server spans three distinct domains (US economic data, SEC EDGAR, on-chain data), and each tool serves a unique purpose within its domain. While it feels dense, the breadth is justified by the server's stated multi-domain scope.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface covers the major needs in each domain: key macro indicators, common EDGAR filings and searches, and core on-chain reads. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no PPI, no historical on-chain balances, no company CIK lookup), but agents can work around these with existing tools or by combining them.

Resources