MCP-сервер, который позволяет Claude искать по полному тексту документов SEC.
Спросите Claude «какие компании обсуждали агентный ИИ в своих 10-K в этом году?» и он выполнит поиск прямо в EDGAR — 235 реальных документов, со ссылками.
https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/afa2e1e5-ee79-42ad-a736-6f016b8f6c64
EDGAR фильтрует по CIK — десятизначному идентификатору, который ничего не значит для человека и значит всё для API. Очевидное решение принимает CIK как параметр инструмента и позволяет модели подставлять его. Это терпит неудачу самым худшим образом: языковая модель уверенно выдумает CIK для любой компании, которую она не запомнила, а документы не той компании выглядят точно так же, как документы нужной — правильно оформленные, правдоподобные и совершенно неверные, и ничто не сигнализирует об ошибке. Поэтому инструменты принимают тикер или название компании и разрешают его в коде с помощью собственного файла сопоставлений SEC. Если название неоднозначно — «American» соответствует 66 компаниям — резолвер возвращает список кандидатов, а не выбирает совпадение с наилучшим баллом, и Claude спрашивает, какую именно компанию вы имели в виду. Модель обрабатывает простые случаи через контекст; код ловит те, в которых она ошибается.
Related MCP server: Aegis Gov SEC Filings MCP
npm install -g @alinarashid/edgar-mcpДобавьте в 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 обязателен. SEC отклоняет запросы, которые не идентифицируют отправителя, а при отсутствующем заголовке возвращается 403, а не пустой результат.
Перезапустите Claude Desktop.
search_filings — полнотекстовый поиск по всем документам начиная с 2001 года. Фильтруйте по типу формы, диапазону дат и компании. Возвращает компанию, подавшую документ, форму, дату и ссылку на документ.
list_company_filings — документы одной компании, от новых к старым. Принимает тикер или название. Фильтруйте по типу формы, иначе в основном вы получите инсайдерские сделки по форме Form 4.
Какие компании упоминали «агентный ИИ» в своих 10-K в этом году?
Покажи последние квартальные отчеты American Airlines.
Найди 8-K за 2026 год, в которых упоминается «существенный недостаток».
Поиск возвращает метаданные, а не текст. Он сообщает, какие документы соответствуют запросу, а не что в них сказано. Перейдите по URL, чтобы прочитать текст.
Ранжирование по релевантности ключевых слов, а не по размеру компании. Короткий документ, повторяющий фразу, оказывается выше, чем 300-страничный 10-K, в котором она упоминается дважды.
Только публичные компании. Частные компании ничего не подают в SEC.
Поиск внутри компании включает сторонние документы, помеченные этим CIK, например предложения акционеров, поданные внешними группами.
Полнотекстовый эндпоинт на efts.sec.gov не документирован — SEC не публикует ни списка параметров, ни схемы ответа, ни гарантий стабильности. Этот пакет читает данные с защитой от ошибок и может потребовать обновления, если структура изменится.
Запросы выполняются последовательно с частотой примерно 8 в секунду, что ниже опубликованного SEC предела в 10.
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.
