Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
mcp-red-web-utils

mcp-red-web-utils

by hsharmanov02
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Hybrid

edgar_search

Search SEC EDGAR full-text filings by query and date range to find specific disclosures and regulatory documents. Pay per call in USDC on Base via x402.

Instructions

Search SEC EDGAR full-text filings (paid per call, USDC on Base via x402)

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "q": "<q>"
    },
    "name": "edgar_search"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
qYes
toNo
fromNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

B3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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 important trait: the call is paid, priced per call, and settled in USDC on Base via x402. That is real value an agent needs before invoking. However, it says nothing about rate limits, what happens on payment failure, or result shape/pagination, so the disclosure is partial.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the parenthetical cost/payment detail is the one extra clause and it earns its place.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a three-parameter search tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter documentation, the description covers purpose and cost but leaves the agent guessing at parameter formats and result behavior. An agent can identify the tool but not reliably construct a call beyond the required 'q'.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0% and the description mentions none of the three parameters. Names like 'q', 'from', and 'to' hint at a query string and a date range, but 'from'/'to' could plausibly be dates, CIK ranges, or form types, and no formats are given. The description does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

States a specific verb (Search) and resource (SEC EDGAR full-text filings), and 'full-text' implies query-based discovery rather than entity lookup, which implicitly separates it from the sibling edgar_company. It stops short of naming that sibling or stating the distinction explicitly.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance on when to choose this over edgar_company, metadata, or caselaw_search, and no prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is only inferable from the word 'Search' plus the SEC EDGAR scope.

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