SEC EDGAR MCP

get_recommended_tools

Get recommended SEC EDGAR tools and usage tips for analyzing a specific form type, such as 10-K or 8-K.

Instructions

Get recommended tools for analyzing a specific SEC form type.

Args: form_type: SEC form type (e.g., "10-K", "8-K", "4", "DEF 14A")

Returns: Recommended tools and usage tips for the form type.

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": {
      "form_type": "<form_type>"
    },
    "name": "get_recommended_tools"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`form_type`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.8May 30, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool returns recommended tools and usage tips, which is basic behavioral information. It does not mention read-only nature, authentication, or any constraints, but for a recommendation tool, this is minimally adequate.

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 exceptionally concise, with a single sentence for the purpose, followed by structured arg and return sections. Every word adds value, and there is no redundancy or unnecessary information.

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?

For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It explains what the tool does, what input it expects, and what output it provides. However, it could be slightly improved by noting that recommendations are based on the form type and may suggest sibling tools.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does so by providing examples and clarifying that form_type is an SEC form type (e.g., '10-K'). This adds meaning beyond the raw schema property name, though a full list of valid values or format could further improve it.

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 retrieves recommended tools for analyzing a specific SEC form type, using a specific verb 'Get' and a defined resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools, which are analysis tools rather than recommendation tools.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description provides clear context by listing example form types, implying the tool is for users needing guidance on which tool to use. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternative approaches.

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