SEC EDGAR filing intelligence for AI agents. Get insider trading (Form 4), earnings data (XBRL), material events (8-K), and recent filings for any public company.
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 3.3/5 across 5 of 5 tools scored.
Each tool targets a distinct data source: earnings (financial statements), FDA (drug safety), insider trades (Form 4), material events (8-K), and general filings (EDGAR). There is no overlap in purpose.
All tools follow a consistent 'get_' prefix followed by a descriptive noun phrase in snake_case (e.g., get_earnings_data, get_fda_data). The pattern is uniform and predictable.
With 5 tools, the server covers key financial and regulatory data sources without being overly sparse or bloated. This is appropriate for the domain of SEC and FDA filings.
The set covers earnings, insider trades, material events, general filings, and FDA data. Missing features like full-text search or SEC comment letters are minor gaps, but core workflows are supported.
get_earnings_dataBInspectGet structured financial data from SEC XBRL filings. Returns revenue, net income, EPS, assets, and more with historical data and YoY growth.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cik | No | SEC CIK number | |
| ticker | No | Stock ticker symbol | |
| concept | No | Financial concept: revenue, net_income, eps, assets, liabilities, equity, operating_income, gross_profit, cash, debt | revenue |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description must bear burden. Only mentions data returned but does not state read-only nature, authentication needs, rate limits, or error handling. Safety is implied but not explicit.
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?
Single sentence that efficiently states purpose and key outputs. No wasted words; front-loaded with main action.
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?
Lacks details on output format, behavior when multiple identifiers provided, data range, and parameter interaction. No output schema to compensate, leaving significant gaps.
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 3. Description adds no extra detail beyond listing example concept values, which are already enumerated in schema. No added semantics.
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?
Clearly states it gets structured financial data from SEC XBRL filings and lists specific financial metrics returned. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, though their names suggest different domains.
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?
Implied usage based on sibling tool names (e.g., get_fda_data for FDA data), but no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or any exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_fda_dataAInspectGet FDA drug recalls and adverse event reports from openFDA. Search 17,000+ recalls and 20M+ adverse events by drug name or company.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| drug | No | Drug name to search (e.g. aspirin, Tylenol) | |
| type | No | recalls (default) or adverse_events | recalls |
| limit | No | Number of results (max 25) | |
| company | No | Company/manufacturer name |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, and description does not disclose behavioral traits such as rate limits, data lag, or pagination. Only mentions scale (17k+ recalls, 20M+ events) but not behaviors.
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?
Single sentence that efficiently conveys purpose and scale without extraneous words.
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?
Adequate for a simple search tool, but lacks information about return format, error handling, or required permissions. Could be more complete given no output schema.
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% with clear parameter descriptions. Description adds minimal extra meaning beyond confirming the search by drug or company. Baseline score appropriate.
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?
Clearly states the tool retrieves FDA drug recalls and adverse event reports, with specific verb 'Get' and resource. Distinguished from sibling tools which deal with financial 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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool instead of siblings. Implied usage for FDA drug data, but lacks comparisons or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_insider_tradesAInspectGet insider trading activity from SEC Form 4 filings. Shows when executives and directors buy or sell company stock — a key alpha signal for trading agents.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cik | No | SEC CIK number | |
| limit | No | Number of trades | |
| ticker | No | Stock ticker symbol |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Only states that it shows insider trading activity; does not disclose behavioral traits like data recency, pagination, authentication needs, or any limitations.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the action. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.
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?
Lacks output schema and does not describe return format or constraints (e.g., need for identifier). Adequate for a simple retrieval tool but could be more informative.
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% with clear parameter descriptions (CIK, limit, ticker). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides.
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?
Clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'insider trading activity from SEC Form 4 filings'. Distinguishes from sibling tools like get_earnings_data and get_fda_data by specifying it as a stock trading signal.
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?
Implies usage for trading agents seeking alpha signals but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide when-not conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_material_eventsCInspectGet Form 8-K material event filings — M&A announcements, CEO changes, earnings releases, and other events requiring immediate SEC disclosure.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cik | No | SEC CIK number | |
| limit | No | Number of events | |
| ticker | No | Stock ticker symbol |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Description only mentions content type (8-K filings). No disclosure of API limits, pagination, response format, or behavior when parameters are omitted. No annotations to compensate.
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?
Single sentence, front-loaded with purpose, including examples. No wasted words.
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?
No output schema; does not explain return data or how to combine optional parameters (cik vs ticker). For a tool with 3 optional params, more context is needed.
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 provides 100% coverage of parameters (cik, limit, ticker) with basic descriptions. Description adds no further meaning beyond examples.
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?
Description clearly states the tool retrieves Form 8-K material event filings with specific examples (M&A, CEO changes, etc.). It distinguishes itself from siblings implicitly, but lacks explicit differentiation.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., get_earnings_data). Does not specify prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_recent_filingsBInspectGet recent SEC EDGAR filings for any public company. Filter by form type (10-K annual, 10-Q quarterly, 8-K events, 4 insider trades, DEF 14A proxy).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cik | No | SEC CIK number (alternative to ticker) | |
| form | No | Form type: 10-K, 10-Q, 8-K, 4, DEF 14A, S-1, 13F | |
| limit | No | Number of results (max 25) | |
| ticker | No | Stock ticker (e.g. AAPL, MSFT, TSLA) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states it gets 'recent' filings but doesn't define 'recent' (e.g., default time window), nor does it explain any rate limits, required fields, or whether CIK or ticker is preferred. Basic transparency is lacking.
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?
Two sentences with no wasted words. The purpose is front-loaded, and the filter options are concisely listed in the second sentence.
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?
With 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers purpose and filter options but omits important context: what the output looks like, how recent 'recent' is, whether both CIK and ticker are needed, or any usage constraints. Adequate but with gaps.
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 description coverage is 100%, and the description adds meaningful context beyond the schema by explaining the form parameter options with examples (e.g., '10-K annual, 10-Q quarterly'). This helps an agent choose appropriate filter values.
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?
Description clearly states it gets recent SEC EDGAR filings for any public company, which is a specific verb-resource combination. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_earnings_data or get_insider_trades by focusing on filings. However, it could more explicitly contrast with tools that overlap, such as get_insider_trades (form 4 is a filing).
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like get_insider_trades or get_material_events. While it lists form types, it doesn't advise which tool to choose for insider trades or events, leaving ambiguity.
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!
