Fetches SEC company facts by ticker or CIK for financial and regulatory analysis.
SEC company facts by ticker or CIK (paid per call, USDC on Base via x402)
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "edgar_company"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cik | No | ||
| ticker | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does 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 a genuinely useful behavioral trait: the call is paid per call in USDC on Base via x402. It omits cost magnitude, auth/wallet prerequisites, precedence when both identifiers are given, and what the response contains.
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?
A single short sentence, front-loaded with the resource and followed by the input keys and the payment caveat. No filler.
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 two-param financial data tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description leaves key gaps: which identifier wins, CIK formatting, and a rough sense of returned content. The payment note is the only behavioral detail provided.
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 0%, so the description must compensate; it does identify both parameters as alternative company identifiers (ticker vs CIK), which is more than the bare schema gives. It does not state format expectations (e.g. zero-padded CIK) or that exactly one is needed.
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?
Names a specific resource (SEC company facts) and the two lookup keys (ticker or CIK), so an agent knows exactly what it retrieves. It does not distinguish itself from the sibling edgar_search, which an agent could easily confuse with a company-facts lookup.
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?
Usage is only implied by 'by ticker or CIK'; there is no statement of when to prefer this over edgar_search, nor what happens when neither identifier is supplied even though required parameters = 0.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.