JMT x402 MCP Server

company_intel

Gather company intelligence dossiers combining SEC filings, web research, and LLM-powered SWOT analysis for informed decision-making.

Instructions

Company intelligence dossier — SEC filings + web research + LLM SWOT analysis. Price: $0.10/call via x402 (USDC on Base mainnet).

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "company": "<company>"
    },
    "name": "company_intel"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`company`	Yes	Company name or ticker

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Jul 13, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Without annotations, the description partially discloses behavior by listing the three components (SEC filings, web research, SWOT analysis). However, it does not specify output format, mutability (read-only), or potential side effects. The price note is useful but not behavioral.

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 concise, using one sentence to convey the core functionality and a second sentence for the pricing detail. It is front-loaded with the key purpose. The brevity is efficient, though it omits some useful details.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given no output schema, no annotations, and a single parameter, the description lacks completeness. It does not explain the return value (e.g., format, structure) or provide guidance on usage context, leaving significant gaps for an agent to correctly interpret the tool's output.

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% for the single parameter 'company', which is described as 'Company name or ticker'. The description does not add any extra semantics beyond the schema, meeting the baseline for high coverage but offering no additional value.

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 produces a 'Company intelligence dossier' combining SEC filings, web research, and LLM SWOT analysis. This specific verb and resource combination effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like sec_filing_analyzer (filings only) and competitor_analysis (specific to competitors).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description mentions the price ($0.10/call) but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like sec_filing_analyzer, competitor_analysis, or deep_research. It lacks any context about prerequisites, exclusions, or recommended scenarios.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.