Skip to main content
Glama

SEC EDGAR Fundamentals

by com.toolfeeds

List Normalized Metrics

list_metrics

Publishes the canonical metric vocabulary this server normalizes SEC XBRL facts into: for each metric its key (revenue, net_income, assets, operating_cash_flow, ...), a human label, the statement it belongs to (income, balance, cashflow, entity), its unit, and the ranked upstream us-gaap/dei tag candidates tried in order until a filer's own tagging matches. Reach for this before any other paid call whenever you need to know which metric keys get_concept, get_financials and compare_companies will accept, or which XBRL tags stand behind a reported figure. Returns the full metric table plus the derived ratios (gross_margin, operating_margin, net_margin, current_ratio) with the numerator and denominator each is computed from. No parameters, no upstream lookup. See /.well-known/x402 for current pricing.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations exist, so description carries full burden. It discloses that there are 'No parameters, no upstream lookup,' returns 'the full metric table plus the derived ratios,' and specifies the table's schema. This covers operational behavior, though it doesn't explicitly state read-only semantics or auth requirements.

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?

A single dense paragraph with front-loaded purpose. Every clause adds detail—metric fields, usage, ratios, pricing—without redundancy. Slightly longer than minimal, but each sentence earns its place.

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

Completeness5/5

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

With no output schema, the description fully specifies the return shape (metric keys, labels, statements, units, tag candidates, and derived ratios with numerator/denominator) and even provides pricing reference, making it a complete guide for a parameterless tool.

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?

Zero parameters; the schema alone covers 100% via its description. The tool description reinforces with 'No parameters' and adds 'no upstream lookup,' clarifying why no input is needed.

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?

States it 'Publishes the canonical metric vocabulary' with specific fields and explicitly ties to sibling tools' accepted keys, clearly differentiating from company_profile, list_filings, etc.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly instructs to 'Reach for this before any other paid call' and lists the exact scenarios (knowing which keys get_concept/get_financials/compare_companies accept, identifying XBRL tags behind figures), providing clear when-to-use guidance.

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

All SEC EDGAR Fundamentals toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Every tool targets a distinct resource and action: company reference, financial statements, single-metric history, cross-company comparison, filing history, insider transactions, insider aggregation, and vocabulary lookup. Cross-references between insider tools make boundaries explicit and prevent misselection.

Naming Consistency4/5

Names are all snake_case and mostly follow predictable verb_noun conventions like get_*, list_*, and screen_*. A few noun-phrase names (company_profile, insider_profile, issuer_insider_activity) and adjective-noun names (latest_insider_filings) break the strict pattern, but the meaning remains clear.

Tool Count5/5

Twelve tools is well within the ideal range for a focused SEC EDGAR fundamentals server. Each tool covers a meaningful slice of either financial data or insider ownership data, and none feels redundant or unnecessary.

Completeness4/5

The server covers the core read-only workflows well: company identity, normalized financials, metric history, cross-company comparison, filing history, insider transactions, insider profiles, and vocabulary support. Minor gaps exist—no company search by name/CIK and no raw filing text retrieval—but common fundamental and insider questions can be answered without dead ends.

Resources