Get 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) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
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.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.