Get SEC filing summaries listed by Yahoo Finance for a stock symbol like AAPL, returned as structured JSON for filing research.
Yahoo Finance SEC filings. Returns the SEC filing summaries Yahoo Finance lists for a symbol such as AAPL, under modules.secFilings. The response echoes the symbol, and the symbol is the only input.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| symbol | Yes | Yahoo Finance symbol such as AAPL |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose some behavior: the result is located under `modules.secFilings` and the response echoes the input symbol. However, it says nothing about how many filings are returned, freshness/lag, pagination, or rate limits, which matters for a data tool with no annotations.
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 verb and resource, no filler. The closing clause 'the symbol is the only input' is mildly redundant with the schema's single required property but not costly.
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?
No output schema exists, yet the description identifies what comes back (filing summaries) and where it sits in the payload (`modules.secFilings`). For a one-parameter read tool that is close to complete, though it omits return volume and coverage window.
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 `symbol` parameter (with its AAPL example) is already fully documented. The description repeats the same example and adds no syntax, format, or validation detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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?
The description states a specific verb+resource: it 'Returns the SEC filing summaries Yahoo Finance lists for a `symbol`'. That is concrete and distinguishable from neighbouring ticker tools like dividends, splits, or news. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with any sibling, so a 4 rather than 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?
There is no guidance on when to reach for this tool versus alternatives (e.g. yahoo_finance_ticker_news or the sec_* family), and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated. Usage is only implied by the tool name and resource description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.