Crypto, web, finance and app data tools

SEC Metric Screener

sec_metric_screen

Rank every SEC filer by one reported metric for a period, straight from XBRL filings: revenue, net_income, operating_income, assets, cash, rnd, eps, stockholders_equity, long_term_debt, shares_outstanding or any us-gaap tag, for a year (CY2024) or quarter (CY2025Q2). Use for market-wide screens and league tables.

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": "sec_metric_screen"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`limit`	No
`order`	No	desc
`metric`	No	revenue
`period`	No	CY2024

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedOct 22, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden; it does disclose the data provenance ('straight from XBRL filings'), which is valuable. However, it says nothing about how filers that do not report the chosen tag are handled, default result sizing (limit=25), ordering semantics, or rate/coverage limits.

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 core action and scope; the metric enumeration is dense but each item earns its place by telling the agent valid inputs. Zero filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the description covers the two ambiguous inputs thoroughly. The remaining gap is result-control behavior (default page size of 25, ordering direction, handling of missing metrics) for a market-wide ranking tool with no annotations.

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, and it does for the two hardest parameters: 'metric' lists concrete aliases (revenue, net_income, eps, etc.) plus the fallback 'any us-gaap tag', and 'period' gives concrete formats (CY2024, CY2025Q2). 'limit' and 'order' are left to their self-explanatory names and defaults, which keeps this from a 5.

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 states a specific verb and resource — 'Rank every SEC filer by one reported metric for a period, straight from XBRL filings' — and enumerates the metric domain. It implicitly and clearly separates itself from per-company siblings like us_company_fundamentals by scoping to 'every SEC filer' and 'market-wide screens'.

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?

'Use for market-wide screens and league tables' gives a clear usage context that distinguishes it from single-company fundamentals or full-text search tools. It does not explicitly name the alternative or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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

All Crypto, web, finance and app data tools 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?