Skip to main content
Glama

Valuein — SEC EDGAR Fundamentals & Smart-Money Data

Restatement Radar Feed

list_restatements
Read-onlyIdempotent

List financial-statement restatements — facts a later SEC filing materially changed (>0.5% swing) from what was originally reported. Each event carries the as-reported value, the restated value, the signed delta, a severity bucket, the RAW XBRL tag both filings used (the diff is same-tag, so it is apples-to-apples and checkable), both filings' accession numbers for one-click lineage, an analyst-importance tier (1 headline / 2 statement line / 3 footnote), the fact's rank within the company's restatement history, and — crucially — HOW the company told the market (disclosure_class): non_reliance (it filed an 8-K Item 4.02 telling the SEC not to rely on its prior financials), amended (a 10-K/A or 10-Q/A), or undisclosed (the number changed inside a routine 10-Q/10-K — no amendment, no 4.02). About 94% of events are undisclosed: most numbers that change, change quietly. undisclosed is a statement about the FILING CHAIN, not about the filer's intent — adopting a new accounting standard (ASC 606, ASC 842) legitimately restates prior comparatives with nobody doing anything wrong. Do NOT describe these as fraud, concealment, or wrongdoing. Filter by ticker, sector, severity, minimum swing, importance, disclosure class, or filing date; sort by recency (default) or significance; paginate with the returned cursor. Public data — available on every tier. Provenance: derived from SEC EDGAR filings; verify any figure with verify_fact_lineage.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
sortNo'recent' = newest restating filing first (a market-wide radar). 'significance' = importance tier, then swing size (one company's history).recent
limitNoPage size (1-100, default 25).
cursorNoOpaque pagination cursor from a prior response's next_cursor.
sectorNoRestrict to one GICS-style sector (e.g. 'Technology').
tickerNoRestrict to one company (e.g. 'AAPL').
event_idNoFetch exactly one event by its id (from a prior response).
severityNohigh = |Δ|≥10%, medium = ≥2%, low = ≥0.5%.
disclosureNoFilter by HOW the company told the market. 'non_reliance' = it filed an 8-K Item 4.02 ('Non-Reliance on Previously Issued Financial Statements') — formally telling the SEC not to rely on what it already reported. The loudest signal in US disclosure, and rare. 'amended' = corrected in a 10-K/A or 10-Q/A. 'undisclosed' = the value changed inside a ROUTINE 10-Q or 10-K: no amendment, no 4.02, the old number is simply gone. ~94% of events. Anyone can parse an 8-K, so anyone can list what companies ANNOUNCED; finding what they didn't requires every vintage back to 1993.
filed_sinceNoOnly restatements FILED on or after this date — the 'what changed recently' window.
max_importanceNoOnly lines at or above this importance tier: 1 = headline only (revenue, net income, EPS, total assets, operating cash flow), 2 = + primary statement lines, 3 = everything incl. footnotes. Severity says how far a number moved; importance says whether anyone cares.
amendments_onlyNoOnly restatements that arrived in an AMENDED filing (10-K/A, 10-Q/A) — the company formally telling the SEC it got a number wrong. The sharpest cut there is: it separates real restatements from routine re-files (a next-year 10-K carrying a revised comparative).
min_abs_delta_pctNoOnly events whose absolute restatement is at least this percent (e.g. 5 = ≥5% swings).

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
noteYes
_metaYesProvenance envelope — data lineage for every MCP response
totalYes
eventsYes
next_cursorYes

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds transparency: it's public data, available on every tier, derived from SEC EDGAR. It warns about the interpretation of 'undisclosed' and explains the provenance. It also mentions pagination behavior. No contradictions 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.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is fairly long but well-structured. It starts with the core purpose, then details the data returned, important caveats, and filtering options. While it could be slightly more concise, every sentence adds necessary context, making it informative without being verbose.

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 (12 parameters, enums, output schema), the description covers all essential aspects: what data is returned, how to filter, sort, paginate, and important usage guidance. It explains the disclosure_class thoroughly and warns against misinterpretation. The presence of an output schema offsets the need to describe return values. The description is fully adequate for the tool.

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 coverage is 100%, meaning each parameter has a description. However, the description adds significant value by explaining the disclosure_class enum in detail (non_reliance, amended, undisclosed) and the sort options. This provides context beyond the schema's brief descriptions.

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 it lists financial-statement restatements with specific details (as-reported, restated values, delta, severity, XBRL tag, etc.). It distinguishes itself by focusing on restatements detected via SEC filings, which is distinct from any sibling tool (e.g., verify_fact_lineage). The verb 'list' and resource 'restatements' are unambiguous.

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 explains when to use the tool: to find restatements with filters like ticker, sector, severity, disclosure class, etc. It includes an important usage caveat: not to describe events as fraud when 'undisclosed'. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or state when not to use it, though the presence of many other list tools implies this is the only one for restatements.

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

Try in Browser

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.