EDGAR Alert MCP Server

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v1.0.1
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a clear, distinct purpose. For example, adding vs removing tickers, searching alerts vs getting latest, and company profile vs fundamentals vs agent context are all well-separated with no overlap.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow a consistent 'edgaralert_verb_noun' pattern in snake_case. The verbs are descriptive (get, add, remove, search) and the nouns are specific, making the tool names predictable and easy to understand.
Tool Count5/5
With 12 tools, the server covers watchlist management, alert retrieval, company research, industry trends, and search without being over- or under-scoped. Each tool earns its place for the domain of insider trading alerts.
Completeness5/5
The tool surface covers CRUD for watchlists, multiple ways to retrieve alerts (latest, search, by ID), company data at different depths (profile, fundamentals, agent context), industry/sector analysis (weekly, 12-week), and company search. No obvious gaps for the stated purpose.
Average 4.5/5 across 12 of 12 tools scored. Lowest: 3.8/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 22 commits in the last 12 weeks
- Last stable release on June 21, 2026
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description states 'Auto-creates a default 'My Tickers' list if none exists yet,' which is a write-side effect. However, annotations set readOnlyHint=true, indicating no state changes. This is a direct contradiction, misleading the agent about the tool's mutability. Per instructions, score is 1 due to annotation contradiction.
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?
Three sentences, each purposeful: first defines output, second explains side-effect and usage, third links to sibling tools. No wasted words. Front-loaded with main purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, the description explains what is returned (lists, tickers, plan limit) and mentions auto-creation. It covers the key aspects for a list retrieval tool. Could mention response format or pagination, but adequate for the complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has no parameters (0 params, 100% coverage). The description adds value by noting the absence of required inputs, which is sufficient. Baseline 3 is appropriate; score 4 reflects that description handles the no-param case well without needing elaboration.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool returns all ticker lists (watchlists) for the authenticated user, including tickers and plan limit. The verb 'returns' and resource 'ticker lists' are specific. It distinguishes from siblings like edgaralert_add_ticker_to_list (adds) and edgaralert_remove_ticker_from_list (removes) by focusing on retrieval.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly says to use this tool to find listId for add/remove operations and to check current tracking. It also mentions the default watchlist is used by other tools with scope='watchlist'. While no explicit when-not-to-use is given, the use cases are clear and actionable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description consistently reinforces a safe, read-only behavior. It adds the PRO plan requirement, which is valuable behavioral context beyond annotations. No contradictions.
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?
Three sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: function, data source, and access requirement. Efficiently structured with no superfluous words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a read-only tool with robust annotations and schema, the description is largely complete. However, it lacks an explanation of the output format (e.g., fields returned, date range limits), which would be helpful since there is no output schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% and each parameter has a clear description. The tool description adds high-level context (e.g., 'around an alert') but no additional syntax or format details beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states it returns daily price history for a stock around an alert date, with an explicit backtesting use case. The verb 'get' and resource 'price_window' are specific. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on price history around alerts, contrasting with search/add/list operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides clear context: useful for backtesting, requires an alert ID from specific sibling tools, and requires a PRO plan. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it is not investment advice, data may be incomplete/delayed, and requires enterprise plan. No contradiction with annotations.
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?
Efficient structure: front-loaded purpose, list of contents, caveats, and usage recommendation in a single paragraph. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema exists, but the description compensates by listing the return components. It explains the tool's richness and purpose. Minor omission: no mention of response size limits or pagination, but overall complete for its complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description mentions parameters implicitly through the listed components but adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool returns 'a single bundled, AI-optimized research payload for a company' and lists specific components. It also distinguishes from siblings by explicitly recommending this tool over combining three separate tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Prefer this tool over combining... when you need a full picture of one company in one call.' Also states the prerequisite: 'Requires EDGAR Alert ENTERPRISE plan.'
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds context about the required subscription plan and the query scope, but does not discuss response format or pagination. Since annotations are rich, the description supplements them well without contradiction.
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?
The description is two sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: the first explains the tool's function and lists key filters, the second gives usage guidance and an alternative. No wasted words, and the core action is front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 16 parameters and no output schema, the description provides a good overview of capabilities, usage context, and prerequisites. It does not describe the output structure, but the limit parameter hints at pagination. Overall, it is fairly complete for an experienced user.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so each parameter is already documented. The description adds value by grouping filters into categories (e.g., 'signal score range, date range, transaction side'), but does not provide details beyond what the schema offers. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Searches SEC insider trading alerts'), specifies the resource (Form 4 and 8-K events), and distinguishes itself from the sibling tool edgaralert_get_latest_alerts by contrasting 'targeted research questions' with 'general recent-activity feed'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly defines when to use ('targeted research questions') and when not to use ('general recent-activity feed'), names the alternative tool (edgaralert_get_latest_alerts), and mentions the prerequisite (PRO plan or higher, noting the Enterprise key qualifies).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate destructive and idempotent hints; description adds HTTP 204 success code and error condition for missing ticker, providing behavioral detail beyond annotations.
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?
Two concise sentences with no unnecessary words, efficiently front-loading the action and essential usage guidance.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given two simple parameters, no output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description fully covers purpose, prerequisite, return code, and error handling.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, and description adds value by referencing a sibling tool for listId and giving a ticker example (e.g., AAPL), enriching parameter understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states the action 'removes a stock ticker' from a watchlist, distinguishing from sibling 'add_ticker_to_list' and specifying the resource.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly advises to use 'edgaralert_get_ticker_lists' first to obtain listId, and notes error cases. Lacks explicit when-not scenarios but provides sufficient context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive. Description adds valuable behavioral context: requires PRO plan, data sourced from SEC filings. No contradictions.
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?
Two compact sentences: first defines purpose and output, second provides usage guidance and requirement. No fluff, front-loaded with key information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, description lists key metrics returned, which is sufficient for an agent to understand the output. Also mentions PRO plan constraint. Lacks detail on data structure (e.g., array shape) but tone is adequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema covers all 3 parameters with descriptions. Description adds meaning by enumerating example output fields (revenue, net income, etc.), which helps infer return value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states it returns historical company fundamentals derived from SEC filings, listing specific metrics. Distinguishes from sibling tool edgaralert_get_company_profile by noting it is for multi-year history versus a latest snapshot.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly says when to use this tool (need historical fundamentals) and when not to (need latest snapshot), recommending the alternative edgaralert_get_company_profile. Also mentions the PRO plan requirement.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint false. Description adds valuable context: default minScore=80 (high-confidence), returns both Form 4 and 8-K alerts, and scope defaults to universe. No contradictions with annotations.
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?
Four sentences, each adding distinct value: purpose, default behavior, usage guidance, sibling differentiation. No fluff or redundancy. Information is front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Coverage is strong for a read-only listing tool with rich annotations and 100% schema coverage. Description covers main purpose, defaults, and when to use sibling. Lacks explicit mention of output format (e.g., array of alert objects), but this is minor given no output schema and context signals indicating it.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% (all 6 parameters described). Description adds clarity on minScore default and its effect on confidence threshold, and mentions scope default ('universe'). These details go beyond the schema annotations for default values.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description specifies verb 'returns', resource 'latest SEC Form 4 and 8-K Item 5.02 alerts', and scope 'ranked by recency'. Clearly distinguishes from sibling edgaralert_search_alerts by contrasting use cases. No ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly states when to use: 'what's happening right now' questions. Directly names alternative tool for complex searches: edgaralert_search_alerts. Provides clear context for tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses plan limits (FREE/STARTER capped at 10 tickers) and return value (created item). Annotations already indicate write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructive (destructiveHint=false), so description adds useful context without contradiction.
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?
Two succinct sentences that front-load the main action and include essential usage guidance without extraneous text.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given simple tool (2 required params, no output schema), description covers prerequisite, plan limits, return behavior, and parameter nuances. Provides a complete picture for correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema already has 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters. Description adds extra context: for listId, references prerequisite tool; for ticker, notes uppercasing. This adds value beyond schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states 'Adds a stock ticker to one of the user's ticker lists (watchlists).' This specifies the verb (adds), resource (ticker to list), differentiates from siblings like get_ticker_lists and remove_ticker_from_list.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly instructs to use edgaralert_get_ticker_lists first to find the correct listId, and mentions plan limits. Provides clear when-to-use and constraints.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate safe read-only and idempotent behavior; description adds value by detailing the specific data categories returned and plan availability, with no contradictions.
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?
Description is concise, front-loaded with what the tool returns, and includes necessary context about alternatives without unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, the description adequately covers the return content by listing categories and mentions plan availability and alternatives, making it complete for a profile-retrieval tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% and descriptions in schema are sufficient. The tool description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool returns a company's profile with specific sections (identity, market summary, etc.) and distinguishes itself from siblings by naming alternative tools for more detailed fundamentals or bundled context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly mentions it is available on all paid plans and provides clear guidance on when to use alternative tools (edgaralert_get_company_fundamentals for detailed history, edgaralert_get_company_agent_context for bundled payload).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds value by detailing the return content (weekly summary, top industries/companies), which is beyond what annotations provide. No contradictions.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with key information. Every word is meaningful and no fluff. Highly concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no parameters, no output schema, and simple functionality, the description fully covers what the tool does and when to use it. No gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are no parameters, so the description does not need to add parameter details. Baseline of 4 is appropriate as schema coverage is 100% and the tool requires no input.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it returns a market-wide weekly summary of insider trading activity, specifying the exact outputs: most bullish/bearish industries and top buying/selling companies. This is specific and distinct from sibling tools that focus on individual companies or alerts.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly says 'Good for broad "what's the market doing" questions before drilling into a specific company or sector.' This gives clear context on when to use this tool versus alternatives like company profile or industry capital flow tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Description adds plan requirement beyond annotations; annotations already indicate read-only and idempotent, no contradiction.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise sentences with key info front-loaded; could be slightly more compact but efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Describes purpose, usage, and constraints adequately; return format not described but acceptable for a search tool with good annotations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, but description adds the required combination constraint not in schema. However, it mostly restates parameter descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool searches SEC-registered companies by multiple criteria and distinguishes it from sibling tools by specifying its role as a lookup before other endpoints.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly tells when to use (to find ticker/CIK before other tools) and states minimum requirements (at least one of query, ticker, or sicCode).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds value by explaining the rolling 12-week window, the selection criteria (top 6 by absolute net insider score), and the grouping (FF48 classification nested under GICS-like sectors). No contradictions with annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured, front-loading the main output and purpose. It is a bit lengthy but every sentence adds value, providing output fields, classification details, use cases, and sibling comparison. Could be slightly more concise, but overall efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema and zero parameters, the description comprehensively covers all necessary context: output fields, data grouping (FF48 under sectors), usage context (sustained sector rotation), and comparison to sibling tools. It fully enables correct tool invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%. According to the rules, 0 params defaults to baseline 4. The description does not need to add parameter semantics since there are none.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool returns '12-week rolling insider capital flow' for the top 6 most active FF48 industry groups. It lists the specific fields (weekStartDate, weekEndDate, etc.). It explicitly distinguishes from sibling edgaralert_get_weekly_insights by noting this provides multi-week trend data versus a single-week snapshot.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit guidance: use this to identify sustained sector rotation, complements the weekly insights tool, and gives example questions like 'which industries have had sustained insider buying over the past 3 months?'. This clearly indicates when to use this tool vs alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![edgaralert-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/ikop32-code/edgaralert-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/ikop32-code/edgaralert-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![edgaralert-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/ikop32-code/edgaralert-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/ikop32-code/edgaralert-mcp)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/ikop32-code/edgaralert-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server