Genexxis paid agent tools (x402)

edgar_facts_query

Same as POST /facts with query strings: values of one XBRL concept as filed (end, start, val, unit, fy, fp, form, filed, accn, frame), newest first, optional form and unit filters. 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_query"
  }
}

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

B3/5.0

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 add two genuinely useful facts not in structured fields: a $0.004 USDC per-call price via x402 on Base, and that results are ordered newest first. It says nothing about authentication beyond payment, rate limits, empty-result behavior, or error conditions for an invalid concept, so the disclosure is partial.

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?

Two tight sentences with no filler; the cost is clearly placed at the end where a caller will look for it. Minor inefficiency: the leading "Same as POST /facts with query strings" anchor is the least informative clause yet occupies the front-loaded position.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates well by enumerating the returned fields (end, start, val, unit, fy, fp, form, filed, accn, frame) and their ordering. With six parameters at full schema coverage and pricing disclosed, the remaining gap is sibling differentiation rather than missing invocation-critical detail.

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 cik, ticker, concept, form, unit, and limit. The description restates the optional form and unit filters without adding formats, valid ranges, or interaction rules (e.g., cik vs ticker precedence), so baseline 3 applies.

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

Purpose3/5

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

It does say what data comes back — "values of one XBRL concept as filed" with a field list and "newest first" ordering — which is more than a restatement of the name. But the opening framing "Same as POST /facts with query strings" points at an external HTTP endpoint rather than describing the operation, and it never distinguishes itself from siblings like edgar_facts 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?

There is no statement of when to choose this over edgar_facts, edgar_financials, or edgar_filings — the most likely source of a wrong tool pick. The only usage-ish content is that form and unit filters are optional, which is really parameter behavior rather than guidance.

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?