Find company details and SEC regulatory filings by stock ticker symbol to identify a company and retrieve its relevant filings.
Find company information and regulatory filings using a stock symbol with the FMP SEC Filings Company Search By Symbol API. Quickly access essential company details based on stock ticker symbols.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| symbol | Yes | 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, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that results include company information and regulatory filings, but it does not describe pagination, rate limits, or exact return shape.
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 first sentence is front-loaded and useful, but the second sentence largely repeats the same idea ('essential company details based on stock ticker symbols') without adding new information.
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 one-parameter read-only search tool with annotations and no output schema, the description identifies the input and broad result categories. It remains vague about what 'company information' includes and what the filings results look like, leaving some ambiguity.
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 documented as 'Stock symbol'; the description only restates that it uses ticker symbols. It adds no format examples or validation details beyond the schema.
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 uses a specific verb ('Find') and resources ('company information and regulatory filings') and states the input is a stock symbol. It does not explicitly contrast with searchCompaniesByName or searchCompaniesByCIK, so sibling differentiation is only implicit.
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?
It implies the tool is for cases where a stock symbol is available, but it never states when to choose it over searchCompaniesByName, searchCompaniesByCIK, or getCompanyProfile. No exclusions or prerequisites are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.