JMT x402 MCP Server

sec_filing_analyzer

Analyze SEC 10-K and 10-Q filings with LLM to extract key risks and insights from financial reports.

Instructions

Deep SEC filing analysis — 10-K/10-Q with LLM risk extraction. Price: $0.08/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": {
      "ticker": "<ticker>"
    },
    "name": "sec_filing_analyzer"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ticker`	Yes	Stock ticker
`filing_type`	No	Filing type (10-K, 10-Q, 8-K)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Jul 13, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the cost ($0.08/call via x402 on Base mainnet) and the LLM-based risk extraction approach, but lacks information on side effects, authentication needs, or whether the operation is read-only.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two concise sentences: first states the purpose, second states the pricing. No unnecessary words, and key information is front-loaded.

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?

Lacks description of the output format or content (e.g., what the LLM extracts, how results are returned). No mention of limitations (e.g., supported filing types beyond 10-K/10-Q) or error conditions. For a paid tool, more detail is needed.

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 description coverage is 100% (both ticker and filing_type have descriptions). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema; it mentions '10-K/10-Q' but does not elaborate on parameter usage or constraints.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Description clearly states it performs deep SEC filing analysis for 10-K/10-Q with LLM risk extraction. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like edgar_lookup (likely raw filing retrieval) and company_intel (broader company info), though no explicit differentiation is made.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as edgar_lookup or company_intel. The description only mentions the cost, not the appropriate context or exclusions.

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