Get a company's SEC identity, sector, industry, employees, and officers from its ticker symbol. For funds, use fund_profile.
What a company is: its SEC identity (CIK, legal name, industry code, state of incorporation, fiscal year end, addresses), and from the reader's vendors its sector, industry, description, employees and officers. For an ETF or fund use fund_profile.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| symbol | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains that data are sourced from SEC records and vendor providers, and it implies a read-only profile lookup, but it does not explicitly state that the operation has no side effects, how missing data are handled, or what the response shape looks like.
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?
The description is compact, with the core content list front-loaded and no filler. The phrase 'from the reader's vendors' is somewhat opaque, but the overall structure is efficient and scannable.
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 single-parameter profile lookup, the description covers the main output domains and provides the fund-profile alternative. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it should more explicitly state that it returns read-only profile data for a ticker symbol and note any limitations, leaving a modest but real gap.
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?
The sole required parameter, symbol, has 0% schema description coverage, and the description never explains what symbol values are accepted or how they should be formatted. It only describes the output fields, so the agent gets no parameter-level guidance beyond the property's title.
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?
The description clearly defines what the tool returns: a company's SEC identity and vendor-sourced profile data, with explicit field examples such as CIK, legal name, industry code, addresses, employees, and officers. It also names the closest sibling, fund_profile, and says to use it instead for ETFs or funds, making the scope immediately distinguishable.
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 gives an explicit when-not condition: for an ETF or fund, use fund_profile instead. It does not offer broader selection guidance against other siblings, but the identity-focused purpose and the fund exclusion provide enough context for an agent to decide when company_profile is the right tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.