Find SEC filings by company or partial entity name to retrieve official records for any organization.
Search for SEC filings by company or entity name using the FMP SEC Filings By Name API. Quickly retrieve official filings for any organization based on its name.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| company | Yes | Company name or partial name |
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, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that this retrieves official SEC filings via a named API, but it does not disclose matching behavior, result limits, pagination, or response shape beyond that.
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 short and front-loads the main action. The second sentence is somewhat redundant with the first and includes mild marketing language ('Quickly retrieve'), but the structure remains clear.
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 one-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description covers the basic purpose and data domain. However, it leaves open what exactly is returned and how name matching works, which matters for correct invocation.
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%, and the single parameter is already documented as a company name or partial name. The description adds synonyms such as 'entity' and 'organization', but no additional matching 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 states a specific action and resource: searching SEC filings by company or entity name. It is clear enough to distinguish name-based filing search from symbol- or CIK-based siblings, although it does not name those alternatives explicitly.
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 implied by 'based on its name' and the single company-name parameter, but the description gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or exclusions versus searchCompaniesBySymbol or searchCompaniesByCIK.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.