USERDATA

pull_facts

Fetches and stores every SEC XBRL fact for a company from its ticker, supporting traceable financial research.

Instructions

Stores every XBRL fact SEC holds for a company.

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_facts"
  }
}

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

C2.4/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. "Every XBRL fact SEC holds" usefully signals exhaustiveness and large result volume, but nothing is said about whether this writes to local storage, is idempotent, hits SEC rate limits, or requires network/auth. For a tool named pull_* that also "stores," that mutation ambiguity is a real gap.

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?

One short sentence with no filler, and the scope qualifier is front-loaded. It is efficient, though its brevity comes at the cost of the missing details noted elsewhere.

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 explained. Still, for a one-parameter data-pull tool with no annotations, the description omits the parameter meaning, the retrieval-vs-storage behavior, and how this differs from the closely related pull_filings and pull_statements siblings.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description never mentions the single parameter. It implies a company identifier but never says the parameter is a ticker, what format it takes (e.g., "AAPL" vs "0000320193"), or whether foreign/OTC tickers are accepted.

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?

"Stores every XBRL fact SEC holds for a company" identifies the resource (SEC XBRL facts) and implies a company scope, which is enough to distinguish it from pull_filings or pull_prices. However, the verb "stores" conflicts with the tool name pull_facts and leaves it unclear whether this retrieves data, persists it locally, 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 use this over the many sibling pull_* tools (pull_filings, pull_statements, pull_company, pull_profile). The agent must infer that this is the raw-fact-level option rather than the summarized statement option, which is exactly the distinction that matters here.

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