Fintech Intel

Fintech Company Deep Dive

fintech_company_deep_dive

Read-onlyIdempotent

Analyze a fintech company's financials, risk profile, and regulatory history by stock ticker (e.g., "AAPL"). Returns SEC filings, income statements, stock quotes, consumer complaints, and company overview.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`_avKey`	No	Alpha Vantage API key (optional, for stock/financial data)
`ticker`	Yes	Stock ticker symbol (e.g., "AAPL", "JPM")
`_fredKey`	No	FRED API key (optional, for macro context)

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`cik`	Yes	SEC CIK lookup result or null if unavailable
`ticker`	Yes	Stock ticker symbol analyzed
`analysis`	Yes	Analysis type identifier
`sec_filings`	Yes	SEC 10-K filings data or null if unavailable
`stock_quote`	Yes	Current stock quote data or null if unavailable
`macro_context`	Yes	Macro economic context or null if FRED key not provided
`company_overview`	Yes	Company fundamentals and overview or null if unavailable
`income_statement`	Yes	Income statement financials or null if unavailable
`consumer_complaints`	Yes	CFPB consumer complaints or null if unavailable

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

Changed1 schema field changedMay 8, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "analysis": {
+      "description": "Analysis type identifier",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "cik": {
+      "description": "SEC CIK lookup result or null if unavailable",
+      "type": [
+        "object",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "company_overview": {
+      "description": "Company fundamentals and overview or null if unavailable",
+      "type": [
+        "object",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "consumer_complaints": {
+      "description": "CFPB consumer complaints or null if unavailable",
+      "type": [
+        "object",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "income_statement": {
+      "description": "Income statement financials or null if unavailable",
+      "type": [
+        "object",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "macro_context": {
+      "description": "Macro economic context or null if FRED key not provided",
+      "properties": {
+        "fed_funds_rate": {
+          "description": "Federal funds rate data",
+          "type": [
+            "object",
+            "null"
+          ]
+        },
+        "treasury_10y": {
+          "description": "10-year Treasury yield data",
+          "type": [
+            "object",
+            "null"
+          ]
+        }
+      },
+      "type": [
+        "object",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "sec_filings": {
+      "description": "SEC 10-K filings data or null if unavailable",
+      "type": [
+        "object",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "stock_quote": {
+      "description": "Current stock quote data or null if unavailable",
+      "type": [
+        "object",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "ticker": {
+      "description": "Stock ticker symbol analyzed",
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "analysis",
+    "ticker",
+    "cik",
+    "sec_filings",
+    "stock_quote",
+    "company_overview",
+    "income_statement",
+    "consumer_complaints",
+    "macro_context"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

Changed1 schema field changedMay 6, 2026

addedInput schema / examples

Added value: +[
+  {
+    "_avKey": "your-fintech-intel-api-key",
+    "ticker": "SQ"
+  },
+  {
+    "_avKey": "your-fintech-intel-api-key",
+    "_fredKey": "your-fintech-intel-api-key",
+    "ticker": "JPM"
+  }
+]

First observedApr 22, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, which covers the safety profile. The description adds the specific output categories but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication requirements, or how the multiple data sources are aggregated. This is acceptable given the annotation coverage but not particularly rich.

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 a single concise sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource. It uses a clear list structure for return types and contains no redundant or filler text. Every word earns its place.

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?

Given a rich output schema and annotations, the description adequately summarizes the tool's scope and return value categories. It could be more explicit about how this deep dive differs from sibling tools like fintech_bank_health_check, but the combination of description, schema, and output schema covers the essential context for an agent.

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 description coverage is 100%, with each parameter (ticker, _avKey, _fredKey) meaningfully described. The description reiterates the ticker input and provides an example ('AAPL'), but adds no new information beyond what the schema already offers. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema carries the full semantic load.

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 opens with a specific action 'Analyze' and clearly specifies the resource ('a fintech company's financials, risk profile, and regulatory history') and the input method ('by stock ticker'). It enumerates concrete return types (SEC filings, income statements, stock quotes, consumer complaints, company overview), making the tool's purpose distinct from more generic research tools.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like fintech_bank_health_check or fintech_market_snapshot. There are no exclusion criteria, alternative references, or context signals indicating preferred scenarios, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool's name alone.

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

All Fintech Intel tools Inspect

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.

Resources

Need Help?