Valuein — SEC EDGAR Fundamentals & Smart-Money Data

Submit Artifact Feedback

submit_artifact_feedback

Idempotent

File EXPLICIT, structured feedback about a specific artifact you (or the model) produced — a chat message, a report, a thesis, a claim, a tool call, or the schema. Use this (not submit_feedback) when you can name WHAT was judged and HOW: pass target_type + target_id + a sentiment (positive/negative/correction), and optionally a structured reason (e.g. wrong_number, bad_citation, hallucinated_fact), the request_id of the turn, the disputed fact_id WITH its ticker, and an expected_value (the value it SHOULD have been, in your words). Available on EVERY tier including guest/sample. This is a one-way intake channel — it records your assertion, it NEVER computes or validates a number, and expected_value is stored verbatim, never trusted as data. Retried submissions of the same judgement on the same request_id file exactly once. Returns the recorded feedback id.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`reason`	No	Optional structured error-mode: 'wrong_number', 'bad_citation', 'missing_data', 'wrong_company', 'formatting', 'hallucinated_fact', 'tool_error', 'coverage_gap', or 'other'.
`ticker`	No	Optional ticker the disputed figure belongs to (e.g. 'AAPL', 'BRK.B'). ALWAYS send this alongside `fact_id` — a `fact_id` is a one-way hash that does not contain the symbol, so without it nobody can locate the filing and your report cannot be checked against the source. Supplying it is what turns a complaint into a verifiable one.
`fact_id`	No	Optional disputed `fact_id` (most useful for wrong_number / bad_citation).
`message`	No	Optional free-text detail (≤4000 chars). What you expected and what happened.
`sentiment`	Yes	REQUIRED. How you judge the artifact: 'positive' (it was right/useful), 'negative' (it was wrong/unhelpful), or 'correction' (you are supplying the right value via `expected_value`).
`target_id`	Yes	REQUIRED. The id of the artifact this feedback targets (a report id, thesis id, claim id, message id, tool-call id, or table/schema name).
`request_id`	No	Optional `_meta` request id of the turn that produced the artifact. Folded into the idempotency key so a retried submission of the same judgement files once.
`target_type`	Yes	REQUIRED. The kind of artifact this feedback is about: 'chat_message', 'report', 'thesis', 'claim', 'tool_call', 'schema', or 'other'.
`expected_value`	No	Optional: what the value SHOULD have been, in your own words. Stored verbatim for triage — NEVER computed, restated, or trusted as data by Valuein.
`idempotency_key`	No	Optional explicit dedupe key (1–64 chars). Used to dedupe when no `request_id` is supplied; safe to retry on a network error.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`_meta`	Yes	Provenance envelope — data lineage for every MCP response
`status`	Yes
`feedback_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 8, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / ticker

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Optional ticker the disputed figure belongs to (e.g. 'AAPL', 'BRK.B'). ALWAYS send this alongside `fact_id` — a `fact_id` is a one-way hash that does not contain the symbol, so without it nobody can locate the filing and your report cannot be checked against the source. Supplying it is what turns a complaint into a verifiable one.",
+  "maxLength": 10,
+  "minLength": 1,
+  "pattern": "^[A-Za-z][A-Za-z0-9.\\-]{0,9}$",
+  "type": "string"
+}

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"
+}

AddedJun 27, 2026

TDQS

A4.9/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true), the description discloses that this is a one-way intake channel that never computes or validates, stores `expected_value` verbatim, and dedupes on `request_id`. These are critical behavioral details not captured in the 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 long but dense, front-loading the core purpose and usage guidance, then systematically explaining fields and behaviors. Every sentence adds value, though a slightly tighter structure would be ideal given an output schema already exists.

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?

With 10 parameters, 3 enums, and an output schema, the description covers usage, key parameter relationships, idempotency, availability, and return value. It leaves nothing an agent needs to call correctly unexplained.

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

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Though schema coverage is 100%, the description adds substantial semantics: it explains the required pairing of `fact_id` with `ticker`, clarifies the distinction between `negative` and `correction` sentiment, and states that `expected_value` is never trusted as data. This goes well beyond the schema's static 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 explicitly states it files structured feedback about a specific artifact, enumerates artifact types, and distinguishes itself from `submit_feedback` by requiring a named target and judgement. This is a precise verb+resource statement that differentiates it from siblings.

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?

It explicitly directs the agent to use this instead of `submit_feedback` when the artifact and judgement can be named, notes availability on every tier, and explains idempotency and retry behavior. This is clear, actionable guidance with no ambiguity.

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.