Un servidor MCP que permite a Claude buscar el texto completo de las presentaciones de la SEC.
Pregúntale a Claude "¿qué empresas hablaron de IA agéntica en sus 10-Ks este año?" y buscará en EDGAR directamente: 235 presentaciones reales, con enlaces.
https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/afa2e1e5-ee79-42ad-a736-6f016b8f6c64
EDGAR filtra por CIK, un identificador de diez dígitos que no significa nada para un humano y lo significa todo para la API. El diseño obvio acepta un CIK como parámetro de la herramienta y deja que el modelo lo proporcione. Eso falla de la peor manera posible: un modelo de lenguaje inventará con total seguridad un CIK para cualquier empresa que no haya memorizado, y las presentaciones de una empresa equivocada se ven exactamente igual que las de la correcta — con el formato correcto, plausibles y completamente erróneas, con nada que indique el error. Por eso las herramientas aceptan un ticker o nombre de empresa y lo resuelven en código contra el propio archivo de mapeo de la SEC. Cuando el nombre es ambiguo — "American" coincide con 66 empresas — el resolvedor devuelve la lista de candidatos en lugar de elegir la coincidencia con mejor puntuación, y Claude pregunta cuál querías decir. El modelo gestiona los casos fáciles mediante el contexto; el código detecta aquellos en los que se equivoca.
Related MCP server: Aegis Gov SEC Filings MCP
npm install -g @alinarashid/edgar-mcpAñade a claude_desktop_config.json:
{
"mcpServers": {
"edgar": {
"command": "npx",
"args": ["-y", "@alinarashid/edgar-mcp"],
"env": {
"SEC_USER_AGENT": "your-app your@email.com"
}
}
}
}SEC_USER_AGENT es obligatorio. La SEC rechaza las solicitudes que no identifican
al llamante, y un encabezado ausente devuelve 403 en lugar de un resultado vacío.
Reinicia Claude Desktop.
search_filings — búsqueda de texto completo en todas las presentaciones desde 2001.
Filtra por tipo de formulario, rango de fechas y empresa. Devuelve la empresa que presenta,
el formulario, la fecha y un enlace al documento.
list_company_filings — las presentaciones de una sola empresa, de la más reciente a la más antigua. Acepta un
ticker o nombre. Filtra por tipo de formulario, o en su mayoría obtendrás operaciones de información privilegiada del Form 4.
¿Qué empresas mencionaron "IA agéntica" en sus presentaciones 10-K este año?
Muéstrame los informes trimestrales recientes de American Airlines.
Encuentra presentaciones 8-K de 2026 que mencionen "debilidad material".
La búsqueda devuelve metadatos, no texto. Te indica qué presentaciones coinciden, no lo que dicen. Sigue la URL para leer el texto.
La clasificación es por relevancia de palabras clave, no por tamaño de la empresa. Una presentación corta que repite una frase supera a un 10-K de 300 páginas que la menciona dos veces.
Solo empresas públicas. Las empresas privadas no presentan nada ante la SEC.
La búsqueda dentro de una empresa incluye presentaciones de terceros etiquetadas con ese CIK, como propuestas de accionistas presentadas por grupos externos.
El endpoint de texto completo en efts.sec.gov no está documentado: la SEC
no publica lista de parámetros, esquema de respuesta ni garantía de estabilidad. Este
paquete lee de forma defensiva y puede necesitar actualizaciones si la estructura cambia.
Las solicitudes se serializan a aproximadamente 8 por segundo, por debajo del límite publicado de 10 por la SEC.
MIT
List filings a specific public company submitted, newest first. Use when the user names a company and wants its recent reports rather than searching for particular words. Accepts a ticker or company name and resolves it internally. Companies file constantly, mostly routine insider-trading forms, so filter by form type unless the user wants everything.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| forms | No | Optional but recommended, e.g. ["10-K", "10-Q"]. Without it you mostly get Form 4 insider filings. | |
| limit | No | How many filings to return. Defaults to 10. | |
| company | Yes | Ticker ("AAPL") or company name ("Apple Inc."). Never pass a CIK; this tool looks it up. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses ordering (newest first), internal ticker/company resolution, and the fact that unfiltered results are dominated by Form 4 filings. It does not explicitly state read-only behavior or return format, but 'List' makes this reasonably clear.
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?
Four concise sentences, each with a purpose: action/scope, usage context, company resolution, and filtering guidance. No wasted words, and the most important information is front-loaded.
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 list tool with three well-documented parameters, the description covers selection criteria, invocation behavior, and filtering advice. It does not describe return fields, but with no output schema the agent can still reasonably infer it returns a list of filings. Slightly more detail on return shape would make it fully complete.
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 the schema already documents company, forms, and limit, including the Form 4 warning. The description reinforces the ticker/company resolution and filter-by-form guidance, but does not add substantively new parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides.
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 opens with 'List filings a specific public company submitted, newest first,' which clearly identifies the resource and operation. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling search_filings by contrasting recent-reports-by-company with word-based searching.
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?
Explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use when the user names a company and wants its recent reports rather than searching for particular words.' It also gives practical guidance on filtering by form type, which helps the agent decide how to invoke it appropriately.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Search the full text of SEC filings from 2001 onward. Returns which filings contain the search terms, with the filing company, form type, date, and a link. Use this to find how public companies discuss a topic in their own words. IMPORTANT: returns filing metadata only, not the matching text; follow the URL to read what a filing says. Results rank by keyword relevance, not company size, so small companies often outrank large ones. Do not use for stock prices, financial figures, or private companies, which do not file with the SEC.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| forms | No | Optional. Form types, e.g. ["10-K"] annual, ["10-Q"] quarterly, ["8-K"] material events, ["DEF 14A"] proxy. | |
| limit | No | How many filings to return. Defaults to 10. | |
| query | Yes | Search terms. Wrap in double quotes for an exact phrase, e.g. "agentic AI". Multiple bare words are treated as AND. | |
| company | No | Optional. Limit to one company by ticker ("AAPL") or name ("Apple Inc."). Never pass a CIK; this tool looks it up. | |
| end_date | No | Optional. Latest filing date, YYYY-MM-DD. | |
| start_date | No | Optional. Earliest filing date, YYYY-MM-DD. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden and delivers key behavioral traits: it returns metadata only (not matching text, so the URL must be followed) and ranks by keyword relevance rather than company size. These are genuine surprises the agent would not know from annotations or schema. It could add pagination or rate-limit details, but the core quirks are disclosed.
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 dense paragraph that front-loads the core purpose and return shape, then delivers use-case and exclusion guidance, then two critical behavioral caveats. Every sentence adds value; it is slightly long as a wall of text but well-organized and efficient.
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 search tool with 6 params, 100% schema coverage, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is comprehensive: it covers the date scope, return format, use case, exclusions, ranking behavior, and the metadata-only caveat. There are no obvious gaps for an agent to safely invoke this tool.
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 the input schema already documents all 6 parameters including the company lookup behavior and the exact-phrase quote syntax. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate since the structured schema does the heavy lifting.
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 uses a specific verb+resource combination ('Search the full text of SEC filings from 2001 onward') and clearly states what it returns (matching filings with company, form type, date, link). It distinguishes itself from the sibling list_company_filings by emphasizing full-text search across all filings vs. what appears to be a per-company listing function.
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 explicitly states when to use it ('find how public companies discuss a topic in their own words') and provides clear exclusions ('Do not use for stock prices, financial figures, or private companies'). It lacks an explicit pointer to the sibling alternative tool, but the use-case framing and negative guidance are strong.
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.
v0.1.0list_company_filingssearch_filingsScored across 2 tools
The two tools are sharply distinct: one searches full-text across all filings, the other lists filings for a specific company. There is no overlap in purpose or likely misselection.
Both tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern: search_filings and list_company_filings. The convention is uniform and predictable.
Two tools is at the thin end of the range, but the server's stated scope of accessing EDGAR filings can reasonably be covered by search and list operations. It feels minimal rather than bloated.
The tools cover discovery (keyword search and per-company listing) but lack any retrieval tool to actually read a filing's content. Search results intentionally return metadata only, and without a fetch-filing tool, agents cannot access the underlying text, creating a dead end.
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.
Scrape SEC EDGAR filings by company, form type, date, or full text. Pay per row.
