Retrieve a single SEC filing's metadata and primary document URL by accession number, using a CIK or ticker to identify the company.
Get a single filing by accession number. Returns a single SEC filing's metadata and primary document URL. Provide accession plus cik or ticker.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cik | No | SEC CIK (numeric or zero-padded) | |
| ticker | No | Ticker symbol (alternative to cik) | |
| accession | Yes | Accession number |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.5.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description does note the return payload ('metadata and primary document URL'), which is genuinely useful behavioral context. However, it doesn't state read-only/safe-operation characteristics, permission needs, or failure modes for an unknown accession.
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?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with the operation and scope, then the return, then inputs. Nearly zero waste, though the input sentence largely restates the schema.
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 single-record fetch with no output schema, the description covers what it does, what it returns, and how to key it. Missing only explicit caution about required identifiers being valid or what happens when no filing matches.
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 all three parameters are already documented. The description adds only light reinforcement that accession is the key and cik/ticker are alternatives, which roughly matches the schema's own wording rather than adding new syntax or format detail.
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 and resource ('Get a single filing by accession number') and names the access key, so an agent knows exactly what it retrieves. It doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like sec_filing_sections or sec_company_submissions, which keeps it from a 5.
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 usage by prescribing inputs ('Provide accession plus cik or ticker'), which tells the agent it is an accession-keyed detail lookup. It gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives (e.g., use sec_filing_sections for section text), leaving that inference to the agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.