Skip to main content
Glama
Crawlora-org

Crawlora MCP

Official
by Crawlora-org
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

sec_financials

Fetch normalized SEC income statements, balance sheets, or cash flow by CIK or ticker, resolving inconsistent XBRL tags into a stable schema across recent periods.

Instructions

Normalized income statement, balance sheet, or cash flow. Returns a company's financial statements across recent periods, resolving EDGAR's inconsistent XBRL tags to a stable schema. Provide cik or ticker.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
cikNoSEC CIK (numeric or zero-padded)
limitNoNumber of periods, default 5, max 20
periodNoPeriod basis, default annual
tickerNoTicker symbol (alternative to cik)
statementNoStatement, default income

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv1.17.5
    • addedInput schema / properties / period / enum
      Added value: +[
+  "annual",
+  "quarterly"
+]
    • addedInput schema / properties / statement / enum
      Added value: +[
+  "income",
+  "balance",
+  "cash_flow"
+]
  2. Addedv1.5.0

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It does add genuine behavioral context by disclosing that raw XBRL tags are normalized to a stable schema, which tells the agent the output is pre-cleaned. But it says nothing about read-only safety, rate limits, or what happens when a company lacks the requested statement.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the resource before the mechanism ('resolving EDGAR's inconsistent XBRL tags'). Slight redundancy between the first and second sentences (both describe the statements returned), but nothing wasteful enough to drop it below a 4.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a five-parameter tool with full schema coverage, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers purpose, source, normalization behavior, and inputs. It is close to complete; the only mild gap is not sketching the return shape (per-period rows vs. per-statement), which matters given there is no output schema.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with defaults and enums documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description only restates 'cik or ticker' and adds no syntax, format, or interaction detail (e.g., whether both can be passed or which wins) beyond what the schema already provides.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names the concrete resource (income statement, balance sheet, cash flow) and its source (EDGAR XBRL), so the agent knows exactly what it retrieves. It does not, however, differentiate itself from closely named siblings like sec_filing, sec_company_search, or yahoo_finance_ticker_financials, which is the only thing keeping 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.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

'Provide cik or ticker' gives the minimum input guidance, and the three-statement framing implies when it applies. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative, leaving routing to the sibling SEC tools to inference.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools