Valuein — SEC EDGAR Fundamentals & Smart-Money Data

Stage Action

stage_action

Propose an MCP tool call for human approval BEFORE running it. Call this — instead of calling the tool directly — whenever an autonomous or unattended caller (a scheduled standing agent, an unattended agent-runner run, or any MCP client operating without a human watching) is about to perform a write it knows or suspects is risky. The target tool's OWN registered risk hints (readOnlyHint/destructiveHint) decide the tier: GREEN (read-only) tools are never staged — this call is then a no-op passthrough (result: 'not_required') and the caller should just invoke the tool directly. AMBER (reversible write to the caller's own state) and RED (destructive or outward-facing) tools ARE staged: this call does NOT execute anything — it only records the proposal and returns a staged_action_id. A human (or any client acting on the human's behalf) later calls approve_staged_action or reject_staged_action to decide it. Tier: sp500+ (sample rejected — guest has no saved state).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`origin`	Yes	Free-form label identifying who/what is proposing this action — e.g. 'agent-runner:managed', 'claude-connector', 'cursor', or any caller-supplied identifier. Lets a human distinguish which session/agent proposed a given write.
`tool_args`	No	The exact arguments to replay through that tool if/when a human approves.
`tool_name`	Yes	The MCP tool this action would call once approved (e.g. 'save_thesis', 'create_signal', 'publish_report').

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`_meta`	Yes	Provenance envelope — data lineage for every MCP response
`result`	Yes
`risk_tier`	Yes
`staged_action`	Yes
`staged_action_id`	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."

Changed1 schema field changedAug 7, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / tool_name / description

Previous value: -"The MCP tool this action would call once approved (e.g. 'save_thesis', 'create_alert', 'publish_report')."New value: +"The MCP tool this action would call once approved (e.g. 'save_thesis', 'create_signal', 'publish_report')."

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"
+}

Changed2 schema fields changedJul 7, 2026

addedOutput schema / properties / _meta / properties / cost_usd

Added value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": false,
+  "description": "Per-call cost transparency. Omitted for subscription-only tools that have no PAYG-equivalent price.",
+  "properties": {
+    "amount_usd": {
+      "minimum": 0,
+      "type": "number"
+    },
+    "basis": {
+      "description": "payg_charge = real agent-pay charge. payg_rate_card = indicative price, not billed.",
+      "enum": [
+        "payg_charge",
+        "payg_rate_card"
+      ],
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "billed": {
+      "description": "true = this amount was actually charged via PAYG for this call. false = indicative PAYG-equivalent value; your plan already covers this call for free.",
+      "type": "boolean"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "amount_usd",
+    "billed",
+    "basis"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

addedOutput schema / properties / _meta / properties / latency_ms

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Wall-clock milliseconds this tool call took, measured server-side around the handler.",
+  "minimum": 0,
+  "type": "integer"
+}

AddedJul 3, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=false, which is a somewhat ambiguous safety profile. The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond annotations: it explains the tiering logic (GREEN/AMBER/RED), that the call does NOT execute anything, that it returns a staged_action_id, and that GREEN tools result in a no-op passthrough with result 'not_required'. It also discloses the sample-rejection behavior ('Tier: sp500+ (sample rejected — guest has no saved state)'). The only minor gap is that it doesn't explicitly describe the full output schema, but the output schema exists and covers that.

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 dense and information-rich, front-loading the core purpose ('Propose an MCP tool call for human approval BEFORE running it') and then layering the tier logic and alternatives. It is longer than ideal but every sentence earns its place — the tiering logic is essential for correct usage. The trailing 'Tier: sp500+ (sample rejected — guest has no saved state)' is slightly cryptic and could be seen as noise, but it does disclose a real behavioral constraint.

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 tool's complexity (tiering logic, no-op passthrough, approval workflow), the description is quite complete. It explains what the tool does, when to use it, what it returns (staged_action_id), and how it interacts with siblings. The output schema exists and covers return values. The only gap is that the 'Tier: sp500+' line is unclear — it seems to reference a sample/context that isn't explained, which could confuse an agent. But overall, an agent has enough to call this tool correctly.

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

Parameters3/5

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 all three parameters (tool_name, origin, tool_args) with descriptions. The description adds context about how tool_name and tool_args relate (the exact arguments to replay through that tool if approved) and gives examples of tool_name values, but it doesn't add meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states a specific verb ('Propose an MCP tool call for human approval BEFORE running it') and a specific resource (the target tool call to be staged). It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like approve_staged_action and reject_staged_action by explaining that this tool only records the proposal and returns a staged_action_id, while the siblings decide it. The tier logic (GREEN/AMBER/RED) further clarifies its exact role.

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?

The description gives explicit when-to-use guidance: call this instead of the tool directly whenever an autonomous or unattended caller is about to perform a risky write. It also gives explicit when-not-to-use guidance: GREEN read-only tools are never staged and the call is a no-op passthrough. It names the alternatives (approve_staged_action/reject_staged_action) and the condition that selects them. This is exemplary usage guidance.

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.