Supports USDC micropayments on Solana mainnet via the x402 protocol, enabling autonomous agent payments for SEC data queries.
SEC/EDGAR financial data for AI agents. Currently free — no payment required.
Live endpoint: https://aegisgov-sec-mcp.vercel.app
🆓 Free Beta Mode active. All tools return real SEC data at no cost. x402 USDC payments (Base mainnet + Solana mainnet) activate when ready.
Tool | Endpoint | Description |
|
| Search public companies by name or ticker symbol |
|
| Company profile + recent filings |
|
| Get 10-K, 10-Q, 8-K filings with links |
|
| XBRL financial data — revenue, income, assets |
Related MCP server: mcp-edgar
# Search for a company
curl -X POST https://aegisgov-sec-mcp.vercel.app/search \
-H "Content-Type: application/json" \
-d '{"query": "Apple"}'
# Get company profile by ticker
curl -X POST https://aegisgov-sec-mcp.vercel.app/company \
-H "Content-Type: application/json" \
-d '{"ticker": "AAPL"}'
# Get 10-K filings
curl -X POST https://aegisgov-sec-mcp.vercel.app/filings \
-H "Content-Type: application/json" \
-d '{"ticker": "AAPL", "formType": "10-K", "limit": 3}'
# Get financial data
curl -X POST https://aegisgov-sec-mcp.vercel.app/financials \
-H "Content-Type: application/json" \
-d '{"ticker": "AAPL"}'GET https://aegisgov-sec-mcp.vercel.app/.well-known/mcp.jsonUses x402 protocol — HTTP 402 with USDC micropayments. No accounts. No API keys. Agents pay autonomously.
Supported networks:
Base mainnet (eip155:8453) — USDC
Solana mainnet (solana:5eykt4UsFv8P8NJdTREpY1vzqKqZKvdp) — USDC
Facilitator: PayAI — free tier, no key required
No API key required — directly hits official SEC EDGAR (data.sec.gov)
Official government data — 100% accurate, updated continuously
10K+ public companies — all SEC-registered issuers
Agent-native — designed for MCP, works with Claude, GPT, any LLM toolchain
Dual-network x402 — pay in USDC on Base or Solana
SEC EDGAR — official US Securities and Exchange Commission data
Get company profile and recent SEC filings by ticker or CIK.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| identifier | Yes | Ticker symbol or CIK number |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns 'company profile and recent SEC filings', but does not mention behavioral traits such as read-only nature, required authentication, rate limits, or any side effects. The description is minimal.
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 a single sentence with no wasted words. It starts with the action verb 'Get' and clearly communicates the resource and parameter usage. Perfectly concise and well-structured.
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 no output schema, the description should elaborate on the return structure. It mentions 'company profile and recent SEC filings' but does not specify fields, data types, or pagination. The tool has only one parameter, so the context is moderate 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% (the single parameter 'identifier' is described in the schema as 'Ticker symbol or CIK number'). The description repeats this ('by ticker or CIK') without adding extra nuance, format details, or examples. 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 the action ('Get') and the resource ('company profile and recent SEC filings'), with a specific identification method ('by ticker or CIK'). This distinguishes it from siblings that focus on filings only (get_filings), financials (get_financials), or company search (search_companies).
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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings. For example, it does not clarify that this tool returns both profile and filings, whereas get_filings returns only filings. No exclusions or alternative suggestions are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get SEC filings for a company filtered by form type (10-K, 10-Q, 8-K, etc.).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| identifier | Yes | Ticker symbol or CIK number | |
| formType | No | Form type: 10-K, 10-Q, 8-K | 10-K |
| limit | No | Max results |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states a simple retrieval action with no mention of data freshness, rate limits, authentication needs, or side effects. The description adds minimal value beyond stating what the tool does.
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 key information. No unnecessary words. Efficient and to the point.
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?
For a simple tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate but lacks context such as output format, pagination, or usage with different identifiers. It does not fully compensate for missing annotations.
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%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds 'etc.' to formType examples, slightly expanding enum hints, but does not provide significant new meaning beyond the schema.
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 verb 'Get' and resource 'SEC filings for a company'. It specifies filtering by form type, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_company_profile, get_financials, and search_companies. The purpose is unambiguous.
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?
While no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given, the description implies usage for retrieving filings filtered by form type. The filtering aspect provides clear context for the tool's role compared to siblings, which cover different data (profile, financials, search).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get XBRL financial data (revenue, net income, assets) for a public company.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| identifier | Yes | Ticker symbol or CIK number | |
| metric | No | Financial metric: revenues, netIncome, assets | revenues |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It fails to disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, rate limits, authentication needs, or whether the data covers single or multiple periods. The description only states the basic function.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose without wasted words. It is appropriately concise for the tool's simplicity.
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?
Given low complexity (2 params, no output schema), the description covers the basic purpose and data. However, missing usage guidelines and behavioral transparency limits completeness for an AI agent's effective decision-making.
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 both parameters well-defined in the schema. The description adds minimal extra meaning, only listing example metrics that mirror schema enum values. Baseline score of 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 the verb 'Get', the resource 'XBRL financial data', and specifies the data types (revenue, net income, assets) and entity type (public company). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_company_profile and get_filings.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, limitations, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Search SEC EDGAR for public companies by name or ticker symbol.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | Company name or ticker symbol | |
| limit | No | Max results (1-20) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the search action and source, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as response format, rate limits, authentication requirements, or pagination behavior, which are needed for a search tool.
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 a single, well-formed sentence that is concise and front-loaded with the core action and resource. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose without fluff.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity and presence of sibling tools, the description covers the basic purpose but lacks details about return values (e.g., whether it returns CIK numbers, tickers) and does not fully compensate for the absence of an output schema. It meets minimum viability.
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% with both 'query' and 'limit' having clear descriptions. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline score of 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 the verb 'Search', the resource 'SEC EDGAR for public companies', and the method 'by name or ticker symbol'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_company_profile, get_filings, and get_financials, which are for retrieving detailed data after finding a company.
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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies usage as the entry point for finding companies, but does not mention exclusions or specific scenarios, leaving the agent to infer context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
v1.0.0get_company_profileget_filingsget_financialssearch_companiesEach tool has a clear, distinct purpose: company profile with recent filings, filtered filings list, financial data retrieval, and company search. No ambiguity.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (get_company_profile, get_filings, get_financials, search_companies).
4 tools is well-scoped for the SEC filings domain; each tool serves a necessary function without redundancy or gaps.
Covers search, profile, filings list, and financial data. Missing a tool for retrieving full filing text or details, but the set is reasonably complete for common use cases.
Unclaimed servers have limited discoverability.
If you are the server author, to access and configure the admin panel.
SEC EDGAR filings for AI agents: company lookup, filings, financials, insider trades. No keys.
SEC EDGAR filings for AI agents: company lookup, filings, financials, insider trades. No keys.
Search SEC EDGAR filings, financial statements, and company data.
SEC EDGAR financials, insider trading, and economic data for AI agents. US GAAP + IFRS.
We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.
curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/AEGISGOVDAO/aegisgov-sec-mcp'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server