Skip to main content
Glama

Genexxis paid agent tools (x402)

edgar_financials

Standardized financials from SEC XBRL for the last 5 fiscal years and 4 quarters: revenue, operating and net income, diluted EPS, assets, liabilities, equity, cash, long-term debt, operating cash flow, capex, free cash flow and margins. Price: $0.008 USDC per call, paid with x402 on Base.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "edgar_financials"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
cikNoSEC CIK (alternative to ticker)
tickerNoUS ticker, e.g. AAPL (or use cik)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the per-call price and x402/Base payment requirement, but it omits read-only expectations, rate limits, error behavior, and what happens when ticker/CIK resolution fails.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the data and time scope, followed by pricing. The metric list is dense but useful for selection, and no sentence is filler.

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

Completeness3/5

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

With no output schema and no annotations, the description does identify the periods, metrics, and payment prerequisite. However, it still lacks output structure, currency/units, statement basis, and ticker/CIK resolution behavior, leaving material operational gaps for an agent.

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?

Both parameters have 100% schema description coverage, including cik as an alternative to ticker. The description adds no parameter-level precedence, formats, or edge-case behavior beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific resource and scope: standardized SEC XBRL financials covering the last 5 fiscal years and 4 quarters, with an explicit metric list. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like edgar_facts or edgar_facts_query, but the standardized financials framing is clear enough to distinguish it.

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?

The description implies usage for multi-period standardized fundamentals by listing periods and metrics, but it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no alternatives, and no exclusions. The agent must infer when this is preferable to raw facts or filings tools.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources