Genexxis paid agent tools (x402)

edgar_facts

Values of one XBRL concept as filed by a US company (us-gaap, dei or ifrs-full): period end and start, value, unit, fiscal year and period, form, filing date, accession and frame, newest first. Body {"ticker":"AAPL","concept":"NetIncomeLoss","limit":10}; optional form (10-K or 10-Q) and unit. Price: $0.004 USDC per call, paid with x402 on Base.

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": {
      "concept": "<concept>"
    },
    "name": "edgar_facts"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`cik`	No	SEC CIK (alternative to ticker)
`form`	No	Optional: 10-K or 10-Q
`unit`	No	Optional unit filter, e.g. USD, USD/shares, shares
`limit`	No	Rows, 1-200, default 10
`ticker`	No	US ticker, e.g. AAPL (or use cik)
`concept`	Yes	XBRL element, e.g. Revenues, us-gaap:NetIncomeLoss, dei:EntityCommonStockSharesOutstanding, ifrs-full:Revenue

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedOct 25, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose useful behavior: returned fields, newest-first ordering, optional form/unit filters, a body example, and x402 pricing on Base. However, it does not cover error behavior, rate limits beyond per-call pricing, or auth flow beyond the payment hint.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is front-loaded with the core operation and returned fields, then gives a concise body example and payment note. It is dense but mostly earns its space, with only minor awkwardness in the returned-field list.

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 six-parameter data retrieval tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete: it explains the returned fields, ordering, filters, body shape, and cost. It still lacks guidance on sibling selection and deeper operational details such as paging behavior or failure modes.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all six parameters. The description adds a concrete example body and reiterates optional form/unit filters, but does not add significant meaning beyond the schema for ticker, cik, concept, limit, or the filters.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description states a specific verb and resource: retrieving values of one XBRL concept as filed by a US company. It scopes the taxonomy (us-gaap, dei, ifrs-full) and lists the returned fields, making the operation clear. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings such as edgar_facts_query or edgar_financials.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or exclusions. An agent could infer this is for pulling XBRL facts by concept, but with edgar_facts_query and edgar_financials as siblings, the choice is left ambiguous.

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

All Genexxis paid agent tools (x402) tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?