Flori Financial Data API
Server Details
SEC EDGAR financials, insider trading, and economic data for AI agents. US GAAP + IFRS.
- Status
- Unhealthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Tool Definition Quality
Average 3.3/5 across 6 of 6 tools scored. Lowest: 2.7/5.
All tools have distinct domains and purposes: earnings, economic indicators (domestic and international), financial statements (summary and segments), and insider trading. No ambiguity.
All tools follow a consistent 'domain.specific_subject' pattern (e.g., earnings.latest, economic.indicators). No deviations.
6 tools is appropriate for a focused financial data API covering earnings, economics, financials, and insider trading.
Covers fundamental data well but lacks market data (prices, quotes) and other common financial data types, leaving notable gaps for a 'Financial Data API'.
Available Tools
6 toolsearnings.latestLatest Earnings Release (8-K)CRead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Latest 8-K earnings press release text.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| full | No | ||
| ticker | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations thoroughly cover safety traits (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true). The description only adds 'text' as output format, which is minimal. It does not disclose whether it returns only the most recent filing or historical, nor any rate limits or data boundaries. However, no contradiction exists.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, front-loaded with relevant terms. However, it is overly terse and omits critical information (parameter semantics, output structure), making it inadequate despite its brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of output schema and low parameter coverage, the description should compensate by detailing return format (e.g., plain text, HTML), data recency, or behavior of 'full'. It fails to provide sufficient context for a tool with 2 parameters and no output schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the two parameters: 'ticker' and 'full'. 'full' as a boolean is especially ambiguous—does it enable full text versus summary? The description provides zero parameter context, forcing the agent to guess.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the resource as the latest 8-K earnings press release text, using a specific noun phrase. The tool name 'earnings.latest' aligns with the description. While the verb is implicit (retrieve/get), the purpose is clear and distinguishes from sibling tools like 'economic.indicators' or 'insider.trading' which cover different domains.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool compared to alternatives. It does not specify prerequisites (e.g., ticker must be a valid company) or mention when to use 'full' parameter. No exclusionary conditions or sibling tool references are made.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
economic.indicatorsUS Economic IndicatorsARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
US-only Bureau of Labor Statistics economic indicators (CPI, Unemployment, Wages).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| years | No | ||
| indicators | No |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide rich behavioral info (readOnly, idempotent, nondestructive). Description adds source (BLS) but no additional behavioral traits beyond what annotations capture.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, front-loaded with key details (US-only, BLS, examples), no wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Covers source and examples but missing details on years semantics (number of years back vs specific year) and indicator naming conventions. Simple tool, so adequate but not thorough.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema coverage and no enums, description partially compensates by listing example indicators (CPI, Unemployment, Wages) but does not specify years format or valid values.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly specifies US-only BLS economic indicators with examples (CPI, Unemployment, Wages), distinguishing from siblings like 'economic.international'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly states 'US-only', implying use for US data and differentiating from international counterparts, though no explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
economic.internationalGlobal Economic Data (World Bank)BRead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Fetch global economic data from the World Bank API (GDP, inflation, unemployment, population, government debt, official exchange rates) by ISO country code.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| years | No | Number of years of historical data. Default 3. | |
| country | Yes | ISO 3-letter country code (e.g., USA, CHN, JPN, GBR, DEU, or 'all'). | |
| indicators | No |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds the data source (World Bank API) and example indicators, but lacks details on rate limits, data freshness, or response format.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence with clear purpose, but could be more scannable by separating supported indicators or using bullet points.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema, and description omits return format, pagination, error handling, or data structure explanation, leaving a gap for effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema covers 67% of parameters with descriptions. The description mentions ISO country code and lists indicators, but does not add significant meaning beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool fetches global economic data from the World Bank API and lists example indicators, but does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'economic.indicators'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives; no when-not or explicit context for selection among siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
financials.segmentsFinancial Segment BreakdownARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Break down revenue or assets by business/geographic segment.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| axis | No | ||
| ticker | Yes | ||
| concept | No |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds minimal behavioral detail beyond confirming the read operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One concise sentence with no extraneous information, efficiently conveying the core purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 3 parameters and no output schema, the description fails to provide sufficient guidance on parameter usage and return structure, making it incomplete for effective tool selection.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%. The description mentions business/geographic segment but does not clarify the three parameters (axis, ticker, concept), leaving their meaning ambiguous.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool breaks down revenue or assets by business/geographic segment, distinguishing it from siblings like earnings.latest or financials.summary.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for segment breakdown but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this vs alternatives or any prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
financials.summaryCompany Financial DataARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Get SEC financial statements (US GAAP & IFRS support for foreign companies reporting via ADRs). Automatically detects currency (e.g. USD, TWD, EUR).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| all | No | ||
| ticker | Yes | US stock ticker (e.g., AAPL, TSM). | |
| statement | No | ||
| quarterly_trend | No |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and safe. The description adds value by disclosing support for dual accounting standards (US GAAP & IFRS) and automatic currency detection, which are behavioral traits beyond the annotations. It does not contradict any annotation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description consists of two concise sentences that immediately convey the purpose and key features (SEC statements, GAAP/IFRS, currency detection). No extraneous information is included.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description provides a high-level purpose and some behavioral context but lacks explanation of parameter usage and return format. It is moderately complete given the annotations, but missing details on how to specify statements or trend parameters.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is only 25% (only ticker has a description). The tool description does not explain the remaining parameters (all, statement, quarterly_trend) or how they control the output. Given low schema coverage, the description should compensate but fails to add semantic meaning for these parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it retrieves SEC financial statements, specifies support for US GAAP and IFRS (via ADRs), and mentions automatic currency detection. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like earnings.latest or financials.segments, which cover different aspects of financial data.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies it's for obtaining financial statements from SEC filings, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like financials.segments or earnings.latest. There is no guidance on prerequisites or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
insider.tradingInsider Trading TransactionsCRead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Retrieve Form 4 insider trading transactions.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| ticker | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations provide readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering basic behavioral expectations. The description adds no additional details about rate limits, data freshness, or limitations, so it adds minimal value beyond the annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with no extraneous information. It is front-loaded and efficient, earning its place without waste.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has no output schema and two parameters with no descriptions, the description is too brief. It does not clarify the return format, pagination, or how to interpret results, making it incomplete for an agent to use confidently.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning no descriptions for 'ticker' or 'limit' in the schema. The description does not explain these parameters or provide any usage hints, leaving the agent without guidance on how to use them effectively.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves Form 4 insider trading transactions, using a specific verb and resource. It implicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like earnings.latest or economic.indicators. However, it does not mention the key parameter (ticker) which defines the scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not provide context or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!