Resolve a ticker symbol or company name to SEC EDGAR company records, returning matching CIK, ticker, and name data for research and compliance checks.
Resolve a ticker or company name to EDGAR companies. Resolves a ticker symbol or company-name query to SEC EDGAR companies (CIK, ticker, name).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| q | Yes | Ticker symbol or company name | |
| limit | No | Max matches, default 10, max 100 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.5.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses nothing about read-only nature, authentication, rate limits, or matching behavior (fuzzy vs exact). The only extra signal is the set of returned identifiers, which is thin for a no-annotation 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?
Two sentences that largely restate each other: the second sentence repeats 'resolves a ticker symbol or company-name query' from the first. It is front-loaded but the redundancy costs it conciseness points.
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 two-parameter lookup tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description names the returned fields (CIK, ticker, name), which is the main thing an agent needs. It is adequate, though it omits result ordering and matching behavior.
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 both q and limit. The description restates that q accepts a ticker or company name but adds no syntax, format, or matching semantics beyond what the schema says; limit is not addressed at all. Baseline 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb (resolve) and resource (ticker/company name to SEC EDGAR companies), plus the output identifiers (CIK, ticker, name). However, it never distinguishes itself from close siblings such as datasets_sec_companies_search or sec_company_intelligence, leaving an agent to guess which SEC search tool to pick.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no conditions or prerequisites, and no mention of alternative tools. The agent must infer that this is the resolver to call before other SEC tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.