Skip to main content
Glama

Valuein — SEC EDGAR Fundamentals & Smart-Money Data

by io.github.valuein

Generate Research Brief (docx)

generate_research_brief_docx

Render a structured research brief into a professionally-styled Word document — a branded masthead-first page (Valuein letterhead: brand rule, wordmark, 'EQUITY RESEARCH' kicker + date, then the ticker eyebrow, the title as hero, and the named analyst's byline), the body (abstract, optional snapshot table with figures in mono, markdown sections incl. GFM tables, and a citations table with clickable SEC EDGAR links), with a running footer (ticker, 'Built on Valuein · valuein.biz', page number, a single disclosure line) repeated on every page. No embedded charts in v1; pair with generate_dcf_xlsx / generate_comps_xlsx for visuals the analyst pastes in.

SERVER-TRUST: prose, snapshot rows, and citations are rendered as-supplied and are NOT verified by Valuein, so the brief carries a visible 'figures supplied by caller, not verified by Valuein' watermark (response verification.status = 'unverified'). Resolve each citation via verify_fact_lineage before publishing.

Consumes the same sections + citations shape create_report emits, so the typical flow is two tool calls: create_report → generate_research_brief_docx.

Tier: pro+.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
titleYesDocument title rendered in the page-1 masthead (1–200 chars).
tickerYesStock ticker symbol the brief covers, e.g. AAPL, MSFT, BRK.B.
abstractNoOptional executive-summary paragraph (≤2000 chars) shown after the masthead.
sectionsYesOrdered body sections of the brief (1–20); each has a heading and body text.
snapshotNoOptional at-a-glance metric rows (≤20) rendered as the snapshot table.
citationsNoOptional source citations (≤60) rendered as a table with clickable SEC EDGAR hyperlinks.
author_nameNoDisplay name of the analyst producing this brief, shown as a named byline ('By {name}') on the masthead — the way a real research note credits an analyst. Omit to show just the date.
company_nameNoOptional display name shown in the masthead subtitle; 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. Brief prose, snapshot rows, and citations are rendered as supplied and are NOT verified by Valuein, so the brief carries a visible 'figures supplied by caller' watermark. Resolve each citation via verify_fact_lineage for one-click SEC verification.
expires_in_secondsYes

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations are all false, so description carries full burden. It discloses unverified rendering ('figures supplied by caller, not verified by Valuein' watermark), no charts in v1, and repeated footer details. These are meaningful behavioral traits.

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?

Description is long but well-structured with clear sections (masthead, body, footer, trust, workflow). Every sentence adds relevant detail; front-loads the core action.

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?

Covers output type, workflow, trust/verification model, tier, and integration with sibling tools. Output schema handles return specifics. No significant gaps.

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 covers 100% of params, so baseline is 3. Description adds value by explaining that sections/citations share create_report's shape and describing how params map to document sections (masthead, snapshot table, citations table).

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?

Description opens with 'Render a structured research brief into a professionally-styled Word document' – a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings by explicitly noting 'No embedded charts in v1; pair with generate_dcf_xlsx / generate_comps_xlsx for visuals.'

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?

Clearly states typical flow: 'create_report → generate_research_brief_docx' and names alternatives for visuals. Also instructs to 'Resolve each citation via verify_fact_lineage before publishing,' providing prerequisite context.

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