Get 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 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does not mention read-only nature, rate limits, authentication, or any potential side effects. The description only states what is returned, not how or under what conditions.
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?
The description is concise with two focused sentences that front-load the main action and key outputs. Every word adds value.
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?
The description lists returned fields and mentions historical data and YoY growth, but lacks details on data structure (e.g., period granularity, number of years). Given no output schema, a bit more completeness would be helpful for an agent to understand the return format.
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 the parameters are already documented. The description lists some concept values but does not add meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is 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?
The description clearly states it retrieves structured financial data from SEC XBRL filings and lists specific metrics (revenue, net income, EPS, assets) with historical data and YoY growth, distinguishing it from sibling tools focused on FDA data, insider trades, etc.
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?
The description implies use for financial data needs but does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance or mention alternatives. The sibling tool names are sufficiently different, so context is clear.
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.
Most tools target distinct SEC-related data (earnings, insider trades, material events, filings), but get_material_events and get_recent_filings both handle 8-K filings, creating minor overlap. The FDA data tool is wholly unrelated, increasing potential confusion about the server's scope.
All tool names follow a consistent 'get_{category}_data' or 'get_{entity}' pattern (e.g., get_earnings_data, get_insider_trades). The verb_noun structure is uniform and predictable, aiding agent selection.
With 5 tools, the count is reasonable, but the inclusion of get_fda_data (FDA, not SEC) makes the set feel scattershot rather than focused. The server title 'SEC Filings & Earnings' suggests a narrower scope, so the tool count includes an outlier.
For SEC filings, the server covers key types: XBRL earnings, insider trades (Form 4), material events (8-K), and a general filings search. Missing structured 10-K/10-Q data and filing text retrieval are minor gaps. The FDA tool is an unrelated addition, not a gap.