Skip to main content
Glama

equibles

by io.github.daniel3303

At-the-Market Offering Programs

GetAtmPrograms
Read-only

Get a company's at-the-market (ATM) equity offering programs — original agreement date and stated precision, latest amendment, money and/or share capacity, cumulative sales, remaining availability with per-figure as-of dates, expiry, derived exhausted/expired status, and source filings. Bare table figures are normalized only from an exact grounded filing scale header. ATM programs have no tagged XBRL equivalent, so figures come from verified extractions of the company's own 10-K, 10-Q and 8-K filings; only filings from roughly the last 13 months are scanned, so an empty result means no program was captured there — not proof the company runs no ATM program. Nothing is estimated.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
tickerYesStock ticker symbol (e.g., AAPL, MSFT).

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior1/5

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

The annotation openWorldHint=false implies the tool returns complete results, while the description explicitly states that only the last ~13 months of filings are scanned and an empty result is not proof of absence. This is a direct contradiction, so per rubric transparency is 1. Despite extensive additional detail about normalization and estimation, the contradiction makes the description unreliable.

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?

The description is long but every sentence adds value: return field list, normalization caveat, source/coverage limitation, and estimation disclaimer. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and logically structured, with no wasted words.

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?

For a complex financial data tool with no output schema and minimal parameter schema, the description is exceptionally complete. It lists all output components, explains the source filings (10-K, 10-Q, 8-K), the time-window limitation, and the confidence level. The only minor gap is explicit response format, but it's not necessary given the field enumeration.

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?

The only parameter, ticker, is fully described in the schema with examples and 100% coverage. The description doesn't add parameter-level detail, but none is needed for this self-evident parameter. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states 'Get a company's at-the-market (ATM) equity offering programs' and enumerates specific returned fields (agreement date, capacity, sales, availability, status, source filings). This is a specific verb+resource statement that distinguishes it from sibling tools like GetBuybackPrograms by focusing on ATM offerings.

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?

The description provides clear usage context, explaining the 13-month filing scan window and warning that an empty result does not prove the company runs no ATM program. It also explains the data source and XBRL limitation, helping an agent interpret results appropriately. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools or state when-not-to-use, but the caveats are sufficient.

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

All equibles 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

B3.4/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, with detailed descriptions that cross-reference related alternatives. A few near-duplicate names could cause misselection, notably SearchDocument versus SearchDocuments and GetCftcPositioning versus GetLatestCftcPositioning.

Naming Consistency5/5

Tool names consistently follow a VerbNoun camelCase pattern: Get for retrievals, Search for discovery, List/Read for document access, and Add/Close/Remove/Update/Watch/Create/Delete for portfolio mutations. Despite the large count, there is no mixing of naming conventions or unpredictable verb styles.

Tool Count1/5

108 tools is an extreme surface area, far beyond the 3-15 well-scoped range and well past the 25+ threshold. Even for a broad financial data platform, this creates a heavy selection burden and substantial context overhead for agents.

Completeness4/5

The server covers an unusually wide domain: prices, fundamentals, SEC filings, options, insider activity, 13F holdings, short interest, macro data, funds, IPOs, and full portfolio lifecycle management. Notable gaps remain, such as a basic company profile/ticker-resolution tool, dividend history, and analyst estimates, so it is not a perfect 5.

Resources