Chart Library — Market-state research

Company file

get_company_file

Read-onlyIdempotent

One covered company's living research file (company_file.v1): business, three drivers, the last eight fiscal quarters from SEC XBRL with provenance on every number, the desk's own estimates and revision log, the thesis and what changes it, the market-memory bands or an explicit coverage 'none', published notes, and the scorecard.

symbol is a stock ticker; optional as_of (YYYY-MM-DD) returns the latest revision at or before that date, never a
later one. Optional research and operating_model blocks include dated reviews, countercases, checkpoints,
sourced actuals, management guidance, explicit desk assumptions, formulas and calculated scenario values.
operating_model.outputs[].values contains the calculated metrics; units are attached to the referenced cells.
Reported history, fundamental scenarios and historical memory bands have distinct bases. Free public access.
No rating or price target. Not covered returns a reason; use list_coverage for the universe.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`as_of`	No
`symbol`	Yes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedSep 19, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context: free public access, no rating/price target, 'not covered' returns a reason, and the as_of behavior. However, it could disclose more about the output's size or complexity, but this is not required given the output schema exists. The bar is lowered by annotations, so a 3 is fair.

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?

The description is a single paragraph but front-loaded with the primary content, then details on parameters, optional blocks, and usage caveats. It is efficient with no filler, though slightly dense. It earns its place with concrete details.

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?

The tool is complex (a living research file with many components), and the description covers the main components, as_of semantics, optional blocks, and usage caveats. The output schema likely details structure further, but the description is informative enough for an agent to know what it will get and how to handle edge cases like 'not covered'. Slight gap: it doesn't explain how to access the 'reason' for not covered, but that's minor.

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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does explain 'symbol is a stock ticker' and 'optional as_of (YYYY-MM-DD) returns the latest revision at or before that date', which adds meaning. However, the schema has only two parameters, and the description covers both adequately, but not with extensive detail. Given the low coverage, the baseline is 1-2, but the description does add semantic value, so 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 the verb 'get' and the resource 'company_file.v1' and enumerates the contents (business, drivers, fiscal quarters, thesis, memory bands, etc.). It distinguishes itself from siblings like list_coverage and search_research by describing the full research file rather than a listing or search.

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 explains when to use the as_of parameter, the optional blocks, and the difference between reported history and scenarios. Mentions that 'not covered returns a reason' and directs the user to list_coverage for the universe, making alternative usage clear.

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

All Chart Library — Market-state research 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.