Fetch corporate SEC 10-K, 10-Q, and 8-K filings by stock ticker to review financials, risks, and disclosures.
Retrieve corporate SEC filings (10-K, 10-Q, 8-K) by company name or stock ticker. Backed by captainhandsome/sec-edgar-filings-search.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ticker | Yes | e.g. 'AAPL' or 'NVDA' | |
| form_type | No | 10-K, 10-Q, or 8-K | 10-K |
| max_results | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It names the backing source ("captainhandsome/sec-edgar-filings-search"), which is useful provenance, but says nothing about auth requirements, rate limits, read-only nature, or what the response contains — significant gaps for a tool with zero annotation coverage.
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?
Two tightly written sentences front-loading the core capability, with zero filler. The provenance note is compact and earns its place by pointing at the data source.
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 three-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should say something about what a filing record looks like, whether results are paginated or ranked, and any access constraints. None of that is present, leaving the agent unable to predict the return shape before calling.
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 description coverage is 67%, so the schema already documents ticker (with examples) and form_type (with allowed values). The description reinforces the form types and frames the lookup key as a ticker, but adds no syntax or format detail, and max_results is undocumented in both the schema and the description.
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 ("corporate SEC filings") and names the supported form types (10-K, 10-Q, 8-K), so the agent knows exactly what it returns. Sibling differentiation is trivially satisfied since the sibling tools cover unrelated domains (maps, jobs, contracts, streams, listings). It loses a point because "by company name or stock ticker" overstates the interface — the schema only accepts a ticker.
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?
No guidance on when to reach for this tool versus alternatives, nor on which form_type to choose for a given intent. The default of 10-K and default max_results of 5 are silently applied with no explanation of when to override them.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.