USERDATA

pull_company

Fetches and stores a company's SEC profile by ticker, returning the record with its CIK included.

Instructions

Stores a company's SEC profile and returns it, CIK included.

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": "pull_company"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ticker`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 8, 2026

TDQS

C2.7/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does add real behavioral information beyond the schema: the call persists a profile and returns it with the CIK. It omits whether this is idempotent, whether it overwrites existing records, whether a network fetch is involved, and what errors occur for an unknown ticker.

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?

A single compact sentence with the key facts front-loaded (store + return + CIK). It is efficient, though the terse phrasing creates the pull/store ambiguity rather than resolving it.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, but the sole input is entirely undocumented and the persistence side effect is unelaborated. For a tool that appears to write data as well as read it, this leaves the agent without enough to call it confidently.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

There is a single parameter (ticker) with 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions it, its format, or whether it must be an exact SEC-registered ticker. With one undocumented parameter, the description needs to compensate and does not.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The description names a verb and a resource ("Stores a company's SEC profile and returns it, CIK included"), so the agent knows an SEC-profile entity is involved. However, it never mentions that the input is a ticker, and it does not differentiate itself from the several pull_* siblings (pull_profile, pull_filings, pull_facts). The name (pull) and the description (stores) also leave it ambiguous whether this is a fetch, a cache write, or both.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus pull_profile, pull_filings, or pull_facts, and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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