Valuein — SEC EDGAR Fundamentals & Smart-Money Data

Test Signal (synthetic fire)

test_signal

Fire a synthetic notification through EVERY channel the signal is configured with. Use this immediately after create_signal to verify the channels (email address valid / webhook URL reachable + HMAC verification on the receiver). The synthetic fire is logged with a [TEST] summary so it affects neither the real fire counter nor the one-email-per-day cap — the next genuine match still fires normally. channel_type/outcome describe the FIRST channel; channel_results lists every channel's own outcome.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`signal_id`	Yes	Identifier of the signal to fire a synthetic test notification through, as returned by create_signal or list_signals.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`_meta`	Yes	Provenance envelope — data lineage for every MCP response
`outcome`	Yes
`signal_id`	Yes
`status_code`	Yes
`channel_type`	Yes
`error_message`	Yes
`channel_results`	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."

Changed2 schema fields changedSep 17, 2026

addedOutput schema / properties / channel_results

Added value: +{
+  "items": {
+    "additionalProperties": false,
+    "properties": {
+      "channel_type": {
+        "enum": [
+          "email",
+          "webhook",
+          "slack",
+          "dashboard",
+          "agent_run"
+        ],
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "error_message": {
+        "type": [
+          "string",
+          "null"
+        ]
+      },
+      "outcome": {
+        "enum": [
+          "success",
+          "retry",
+          "dead",
+          "skipped"
+        ],
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "status_code": {
+        "anyOf": [
+          {
+            "type": "integer"
+          },
+          {
+            "type": "null"
+          }
+        ]
+      }
+    },
+    "required": [
+      "outcome",
+      "channel_type",
+      "status_code",
+      "error_message"
+    ],
+    "type": "object"
+  },
+  "type": "array"
+}

changedOutput schema / required

Previous value: -[
-  "_meta",
-  "signal_id",
-  "outcome",
-  "channel_type",
-  "status_code",
-  "error_message"
-]New value: +[
+  "_meta",
+  "signal_id",
+  "outcome",
+  "channel_type",
+  "status_code",
+  "error_message",
+  "channel_results"
+]

AddedAug 7, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

The description richly discloses behavior beyond annotations: the test fire is logged with a [TEST] summary, it does not affect the real fire counter or the one-email-per-day cap, and channel_type/outcome describe the first channel while channel_results covers all channels. This adds substantial behavioral context that annotations alone do not convey.

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?

Three sentences, each carrying essential information: the action, the usage context, and the behavioral/return semantics. The main action is front-loaded, and there is no fluff or repetition of schema details.

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?

The tool has only one parameter, an output schema exists, and annotations are present. The description covers side effects (no counter/cap impact), return semantics (first vs. all channels), and usage timing, so an agent has everything needed to invoke it 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 baseline is 3. The signal_id parameter is already documented in the schema as 'Identifier of the signal to fire a synthetic test notification through, as returned by create_signal or list_signals.' The description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning, so it neither needs to compensate nor exceeds baseline.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Fire a synthetic notification through EVERY channel the signal is configured with.' It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like test_rule by focusing on notification channel verification for a signal.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use this immediately after create_signal to verify the channels.' It provides clear context (checking email validity, webhook reachability, HMAC verification) but does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, so it stops short of a 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 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.