Search U.S. SEC EDGAR filings by phrase, form type, or date to retrieve primary-source corporate disclosures; no API key required.
Full-text search US SEC EDGAR filings (free, no key). Use for primary-source corporate disclosures.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| forms | No | Comma-separated form types, e.g. 6-K,10-K,8-K | |
| query | Yes | Phrase to search, e.g. "Hong Kong" or a company name | |
| dateRange | No | e.g. 2026-01-01,2026-09-26 or "custom" |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose that the source is free and requires no key, which is genuinely useful auth context, but it says nothing about rate limits, result volume, pagination, or ranking behavior of the full-text search.
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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed immediately by the intended use. Nothing is wasted, though the content is thin enough that it borders on under-specification for a search tool.
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?
For a 3-param search tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers what the tool is and the auth situation, but omits return-shape expectations, result limits, and how the dateRange/forms parameters interact with query. Adequate but with clear gaps.
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 100% – forms, query, and dateRange each carry examples in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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+resource: 'Full-text search US SEC EDGAR filings'. It implicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling sec_edgar_company by emphasizing full-text (query-driven) rather than entity lookup, though it never names the sibling.
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?
'Use for primary-source corporate disclosures' gives a use context, but there is no when-not guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternative among siblings like sec_edgar_company or companies_house_search. Usage is implied rather than spelled out.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.