Find SEC registrants by ticker or company name to retrieve their CIK, ticker, name, and exchange before pulling EDGAR financials or filings.
Find SEC registrants by ticker or name. Returns ticker, name, CIK and exchange.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety and reproducibility profile is covered. The description adds only that matching is on ticker or name; it says nothing about fuzzy vs exact matching, permissions, or result ordering beyond what structured fields provide.
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 short, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the purpose statement comes first and the return summary second. The return-field sentence is somewhat redundant given an output schema exists, keeping it just below full marks.
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?
An output schema already documents the returned fields and annotations cover safety, so the description need not explain return values. The remaining gaps are the meaning of 'limit' and matching behavior, which leave the definition only minimally adequate for a 2-parameter lookup tool.
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 0%, so the description carries the burden and does partially compensate by explaining that 'query' accepts a ticker or a name. However, 'limit' is left completely undefined in both the description and the schema beyond its default of 10.
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 and resource ('Find SEC registrants') plus the two accepted lookup keys (ticker or name), which is more precise than the bare tool name. It is distinguishable from siblings like get_market_data or get_filings, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with them.
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?
The description implies the natural use case (resolving an entity by ticker or name) but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of when an agent should prefer a sibling tool. Usage is inferable rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.