Skip to main content
Glama

Valuein — SEC EDGAR Fundamentals & Smart-Money Data

by io.github.valuein

Generate Peer Comparables Workbook (xlsx)

generate_comps_xlsx

Render a peer comparables table into an Excel workbook. The Comps sheet is formatted as a named Excel Table (ValueinPeerComps) so the user gets one-click Insert Chart on any column — the cleanest workaround for not embedding chart objects server-side. Subject-row highlight makes side-by-side comparison instant. A Summary sheet adds subject vs peer-median deltas.

SERVER-TRUST: the ratios you pass are rendered as-supplied and are NOT re-derived by Valuein, so the workbook carries a visible 'figures supplied by caller, not verified by Valuein' watermark (response verification.status = 'unverified'). For authoritative numbers, source them from get_peer_comparables / get_financial_ratios first.

Pair with get_peer_comparables for a typical flow.

Tier: pro+.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
notesNoOptional free-text note (≤500 chars) rendered on the Summary sheet.
peersYesPeer companies to tabulate against the subject (1–50 rows); each row carries the peer's ticker, name, and comparable ratio values.
subject_tickerYesStock ticker symbol of the subject company the comps sheet is built around, e.g. AAPL.
subject_company_nameNoOptional display name for the subject company; falls back to the ticker if omitted.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlYes
_metaYesProvenance envelope — data lineage for every MCP response
r2_keyYes
filenameYes
expires_atYes
size_bytesYes
content_typeYes
verificationYesServer-trust record. Comps ratios are rendered as supplied and are NOT re-derived by Valuein, so the workbook carries a visible 'figures supplied by caller' watermark. Pull authoritative ratios via get_peer_comparables / get_financial_ratios.
expires_in_secondsYes

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description discloses that ratios are rendered as-supplied without re-derivation, resulting in an 'unverified' watermark via verification.status. This goes beyond the annotations (which only indicate non-destructive, non-idempotent behavior) by explaining the server's trust model and output implications.

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 well-structured with a clear front-loaded purpose, technical details, and a pairing note. It is fairly concise for the amount of information, though the server-trust section could be slightly tightened. Still, every sentence serves a purpose.

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?

Given the complexity (array parameter with many properties, output schema exists), the description covers output structure (sheets, named table, summary deltas) and response details (verification.status). It also addresses usage context and caveats, making it fully informative for an agent to decide and invoke the tool correctly.

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 100%, so the description adds only marginal value over the schema. It mentions that notes appear on the Summary sheet and subject_company_name falls back to ticker, but these are minor clarifications. No deeper parameter semantics are added beyond what the schema already provides.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool renders peer comparables into an Excel workbook with Comps and Summary sheets. It mentions key features like the named table and subject-row highlight, distinguishing it from generic file generation tools. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like generate_dcf_xlsx or generate_lbo_xlsx, aside from the specific document type.

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?

Provides explicit guidance: pairing with get_peer_comparables for authoritative numbers, sourcing ratios from specific tools, and noting the pro+ tier requirement. Also gives a clear warning about the watermark for caller-supplied figures, telling the agent when to use this vs. data-fetching tools.

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

All Valuein — SEC EDGAR Fundamentals & Smart-Money Data 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

A4/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a distinct purpose with detailed descriptions that clarify differences. Overlaps like get_peer_comparables vs screen_universe are well-differentiated by scope (single company vs cross-sectional). Similarly, get_insider_sentiment vs get_smart_money_flow are clearly distinguished by data sources and methodology.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (e.g., create_report, get_financial_ratios, delete_alert). No mixing of conventions or inconsistent verbs.

Tool Count2/5

With 69 tools, the count far exceeds the 25+ threshold for 'too many'. While the domain is broad, the sheer volume likely overwhelms agents and increases selection complexity.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers a wide range of SEC filings, ratios, smart-money data, alerts, reports, and more. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no options or detailed debt data), but most analyst workflows are supported.

Resources