Skip to main content
Glama

Valuein — SEC EDGAR Fundamentals & Smart-Money Data

by io.github.valuein

Render Report Download URL

render_report
Idempotent

Return a 15-minute presigned download URL for a report in the requested binary format.

format=md presigns the cached markdown — instant, no compute. format=docx and format=pdf return the SAME branded research-note design in the two media: a masthead-first page 1 (Valuein letterhead — brand rule, wordmark, 'EQUITY RESEARCH' kicker + date), the ticker eyebrow and title, the named analyst's byline, then the body (abstract, sections with full markdown incl. GFM tables, citations table with clickable SEC EDGAR links) and a running footer (ticker, 'Built on Valuein · valuein.biz', page N of M, one disclosure line). The PDF embeds the Geist brand faces with figures set in tabular mono. Binary renders are cached in R2 after first build so repeat downloads are instant; pass force_regenerate: true to bust the cache (e.g. right after update_report).

Tier gate mirrors get_report: authors always see their own reports; non-authors below the report's required tier get an upgrade prompt.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
formatYesmd = raw markdown (the same body the editor renders). docx = branded Word document; pdf = the same branded research-note design as a shareable PDF (Geist faces embedded, clickable citation links).
report_idYesId from create_report or list_my_reports.
author_nameNoDisplay name of the report's author, shown as a named byline ('By {name}') on the masthead — the way a real research note credits an analyst. Omit to show 'Valuein Research'. Only affects the binary formats; ignored on a cache hit (the cached file keeps whatever byline was baked in on first render — pass `force_regenerate: true` to refresh it).
force_regenerateNoIf true, ignore the cached DOCX/PDF and re-render. No effect on md (markdown is canonical).

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlYes
_metaYesProvenance envelope — data lineage for every MCP response
formatYes
filenameYes
expires_atYes
from_cacheYes
size_bytesYes
content_typeYes
expires_in_secondsYes

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only state idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds substantial behavioral context: the 15-minute presigned URL expiry, R2 caching after the first build, cache-busting via `force_regenerate`, the tier gate, and the cache-hit nuance for `author_name`. This is detailed and consistent with the annotations, providing value far beyond what the structured fields convey.

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 longer than strictly necessary, but every section adds value: core purpose, format details, caching, and tier gate. It is front-loaded with the main function and logically organized. The detail is justified by the tool's complexity, so it earns a 4 rather than a 3 or 5.

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 tool's complexity (4 params, output schema, multiple formats, caching, access control), the description covers all essential aspects: purpose, format behavior, caching semantics, regeneration, tier gate, and author_name handling. There are no significant gaps that would prevent an agent from using the tool correctly.

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%, so parameters already have descriptions. The tool description enhances this by explaining that `format=md` is instant, docx/pdf share a branded design, `force_regenerate` has no effect on md, and `author_name` is ignored on cache hits unless regenerating. This adds meaningful context beyond the schema, though some details overlap with the schema's own parameter 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 opens with 'Return a 15-minute presigned download URL for a report in the requested binary format,' which clearly identifies the action (return) and resource (presigned download URL for a report). It further distinguishes the tool by enumerating the supported formats and draws a comparison to `get_report` for access control, making the purpose unambiguous and unique.

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 `force_regenerate: true` (e.g., right after `update_report`) and describes the caching behavior that influences call decisions. It also notes the tier gate mirrors `get_report`. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when NOT to use this tool, so it falls short of a perfect 5.

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