Skip to main content
Glama

Valuein — SEC EDGAR Fundamentals & Smart-Money Data

by io.github.valuein

Publish Report (free)

publish_report
Idempotent

Publish a report for FREE at listed or unlisted visibility to build your public author profile. listed makes it discoverable via search_reports (keyword catalog search); unlisted keeps it out of the catalog but accessible by direct id (shareable link). Author can set a tier_required no higher than their own plan. All listings are free today (omit price_cents or set it to 0); paid listings are a future capability.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
report_idYes
visibilityNolisted
price_centsNoCurrently must be omitted or 0 — all listings are free. A non-zero value is rejected until paid listings ship.
tier_requiredNoMinimum subscriber tier to read the full body. Defaults to the author's plan.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
_metaYesProvenance envelope — data lineage for every MCP response
reportYes

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already indicate idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds context about the free nature and future paid capability but does not elaborate on idempotency or behavior if the report is already published. 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 three concise sentences with clear structure. Each sentence adds value without redundancy, and key terms like 'listed' and 'unlisted' are explained inline.

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 the presence of an output schema and annotations, the description covers essential points: visibility, pricing, and tier constraints. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., report existence in draft state), but overall it is sufficient for a tool with 4 parameters.

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?

The description enriches understanding beyond the schema: explains visibility effects on discoverability, clarifies price_cents must be 0, and constrains tier_required to author's plan. Report_id is not explained, but schema coverage is 50% and description compensates well.

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 identifies the tool as publishing a report for free, with specific visibility options ('listed' or 'unlisted'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_report' and 'update_report' by focusing on publishing and building an author profile.

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 provides guidance on when to use listed vs unlisted, explains the price_cents constraint, and notes the tier_required limitation. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives for already published reports.

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