Retrieve detailed company profiles from SEC filings, including business descriptions, executive details, contact information, and financial data by CIK or stock symbol.
Retrieve detailed company profiles, including business descriptions, executive details, contact information, and financial data with the FMP SEC Company Full Profile API.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cik | No | Central Index Key (CIK) | |
| symbol | No | Stock symbol |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.9.0Input schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"Input schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -falseDoes the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the informational content of the response (executives, contacts, financial data), but says nothing about coverage of SEC filings, data freshness, or whether the identifiers must match — modest value beyond structured fields.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler sentences. Slightly padded by the trailing 'with the FMP SEC Company Full Profile API' clause, which names a vendor endpoint rather than telling the agent anything actionable.
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?
No output schema exists, so the description is the only source of return-value info, and listing the data categories partially covers that. But for a tool with zero required parameters and 150+ siblings, missing guidance on identifier selection and on differentiation from getCompanyProfile leaves a real gap.
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% with only two simple parameters (cik, symbol), so the schema already carries the parameter documentation burden. The description adds no meaning beyond it — notably it does not clarify whether symbol and CIK are alternatives, whether both may be supplied, or how conflicts resolve.
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?
States a specific verb (Retrieve) and resource (company profiles) and enumerates the payload contents (business descriptions, executive details, contact info, financial data). However, it never distinguishes the tool from close siblings like getCompanyProfile and getCompanyProfileByCIK; the only differentiating signal is the phrase 'SEC Company Full Profile API', which requires the agent to infer the difference.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance at all. The description does not say when to pick this over getCompanyProfile, getCompanyProfileByCIK, or getCompanyExecutives, nor does it explain how the CIK vs symbol identifiers interact given that neither is required.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.