SEC EDGAR MCP

analyze_8k

Identify material events in an 8-K current report—agreements, earnings, officer changes, and FD disclosures. Use company ticker and accession number to receive structured analysis.

Instructions

Analyze an 8-K current report for material events.

Args: identifier: Company ticker symbol or CIK number accession_number: The 8-K filing accession number

Returns: Analysis of reported items: Material agreements Results of operations (earnings) Officer/director changes Regulation FD disclosures Other material events

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": {
      "identifier": "<identifier>",
      "accession_number": "<accession_number>"
    },
    "name": "analyze_8k"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`identifier`	Yes
`accession_number`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.8May 30, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

The description lists returned item codes but does not disclose potential limitations such as data recency, authentication requirements, or error scenarios. With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of transparency but falls short.

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?

The description is concise with clear Args and Returns sections, no redundant information, and is well-structured for quick comprehension.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given no output schema, the description adequately covers output format with item codes and meanings. However, it omits details like data source, error handling, or usage examples, which would enhance completeness.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 0%, but the description explains identifier as 'Company ticker symbol or CIK number' and accession_number as 'The 8-K filing accession number', adding meaningful context beyond the raw schema.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states the tool analyzes an 8-K current report for material events, which is specific and distinct from sibling tools like analyze_form4_transactions or get_filing_sections.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

While the description implies usage for 8-K analysis, it provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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