Valuein — SEC EDGAR Fundamentals & Smart-Money Data

Generate LBO Workbook (xlsx)

generate_lbo_xlsx

Render an LBO result into a professional Excel workbook (Summary + year-by-year Projection table + Inputs sheet). Returns a 15-minute presigned R2 download URL.

SERVER-TRUST: the deal is re-derived in-Worker from the supplied lbo_result.inputs_echo (the math is pure + deterministic) and the workbook renders Valuein's recomputed figures — never the caller's claimed values. If the claimed figures disagree, the workbook is still produced but stamped with a visible correction banner and the response verification.status is 'corrected'.

Pair with compute_lbo for a typical flow: agent calls compute_lbo({ticker, ...}), then passes the structured result straight to generate_lbo_xlsx({ticker, lbo_result, ...}) to materialise a shareable file.

Tier: pro+.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`ticker`	Yes	Stock ticker symbol of the LBO target, e.g. AAPL.
`lbo_result`	Yes	Structured LBO result — typically the `result` field returned by `compute_lbo`.
`company_name`	No	Optional — surfaces on the cover row. Falls back to ticker only.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`url`	Yes
`_meta`	Yes	Provenance envelope — data lineage for every MCP response
`r2_key`	Yes
`filename`	Yes
`expires_at`	Yes
`size_bytes`	Yes
`content_type`	Yes
`verification`	Yes	Server-trust record. status='verified' when the caller's figures matched the server re-derivation; 'corrected' when they did not (the workbook shows the SERVER figures + a banner). `mismatches` lists every field that disagreed.
`expires_in_seconds`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedSep 18, 2026

changedOutput schema / properties / _meta / properties / fundamentals_as_of / description

Previous value: -"ISO timestamp when the FINANCIAL STATEMENTS were last rebuilt. Use THIS — not `last_updated` — when telling a user how current the fundamentals are. The snapshot is republished on every weekday price refresh while the statements are carried forward unchanged, so `last_updated` can be far more recent than the numbers it sits next to."New value: +"ISO timestamp when the FINANCIAL STATEMENTS were last rebuilt in bulk. Use THIS — not `last_updated` — when telling a user how current the cross-sectional fundamentals are. The snapshot is republished on every weekday price refresh while the statements are carried forward unchanged, so `last_updated` can be far more recent than the numbers it sits next to. It is a floor for a single filer, not a ceiling: a filer with a live partition receives its filing, facts and ratios intraday (minutes after EDGAR dissemination), so an entity-scoped read may carry a filing newer than this; cross-sectional ranks (factor scores, earnings signals) refresh with the weekly bulk export."

Changed2 schema fields changedJul 25, 2026

addedOutput schema / properties / _meta / properties / fundamentals_as_of

Added value: +{
+  "description": "ISO timestamp when the FINANCIAL STATEMENTS were last rebuilt. Use THIS — not `last_updated` — when telling a user how current the fundamentals are. The snapshot is republished on every weekday price refresh while the statements are carried forward unchanged, so `last_updated` can be far more recent than the numbers it sits next to.",
+  "type": "string"
+}

addedOutput schema / properties / _meta / properties / price_as_of

Added value: +{
+  "description": "ISO timestamp when the price surfaces were last refreshed.",
+  "type": "string"
+}

AddedJul 9, 2026

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

With annotations only indicating non-read-only and non-idempotent, the description carries the full behavioral burden and excels: it discloses server-side re-derivation from inputs_echo, deterministic math, that claimed figures are never trusted, the correction banner, and the verification.status='corrected' response. It also reveals that the URL expires in 15 minutes. No contradiction with annotations.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and output, then layers in the server-trust behavior, the compute_lbo pairing, and the tier constraint. Each sentence earns its place, and the structure moves from what the tool does to how it behaves to how to use it. No filler.

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 richly nested lbo_result schema and the existence of an output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs to invoke correctly: the parameter flow, the server-side verification behavior, the correction mechanism, the URL expiry, and the expected verification status field. Nothing critical is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents ticker, lbo_result, and company_name. The description adds meaningful context beyond the schema by highlighting lbo_result.inputs_echo as the source for re-derivation, which helps an agent understand that the supplied lbo_result is not blindly accepted. This is useful semantic enrichment over the structured field definitions.

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 verb and resource: 'Render an LBO result into a professional Excel workbook' and enumerates the exact sheets (Summary, year-by-year Projection table, Inputs sheet). It also names the return artifact (15-minute presigned R2 download URL), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling generators like compute_lbo, generate_dcf_xlsx, and generate_comps_xlsx.

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 explicitly provides the typical flow: call compute_lbo first, then pass the structured result to generate_lbo_xlsx to materialize a shareable file. It also notes the pro+ tier constraint. However, it does not mention when to avoid this tool or name alternatives like generate_dcf_xlsx, so the guidance is clear but lacks explicit exclusions.

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 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.