Skip to main content
Glama

FinancialMD

Ratios computed from the filings

ratios
Read-onlyIdempotent

Return the ratios FinancialMD computes from a company's standardized facts: gross, operating, net and free cash flow margins, revenue growth year over year, return on equity and on assets, asset turnover, current ratio, debt to equity, interest coverage, basic and diluted EPS; for banks net interest income to average loans and securities (not the bank's reported NIM), efficiency ratio and loans to deposits; for insurers loss and acquisition cost ratios; and valuation at each period end (market cap, EV, P/E, P/S, P/B, EV/EBITDA, EV/EBIT, FCF and dividend yield) from the last IEX close on or before the period end (data.price_basis says which close, or why valuation is empty: several share classes, an ADR, no prices). The result has the statement grid shape (periods most recent first, one row per ratio, cells aligned with periods); margins and growth are fractions (0.462 is 46.2 percent). Every cell is a value object whose proof lists the proof ids of its inputs (proof.inputs) and whose method is derived_lineitem; proof_get on a ratio proof returns the inputs and the formula. A cell is null when an input is missing (a bank has no gross margin) or a denominator is zero: never NaN. as_of computes from the facts known on that date. For valuation on every trading day use ratios_daily. Use it when the question is about margins, returns, leverage, growth or valuation at period ends.

Example tool call

This call uses example arguments supplied in the tool’s input schema.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "limit": 5,
      "company": "ticker:AAPL",
      "period_type": "annual"
    },
    "name": "ratios"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
as_ofNoKnowledge date or timestamp (YYYY-MM-DD or RFC 3339). The answer is what FinancialMD knew at that instant: only facts whose known interval contains as_of. Omit for the current view.
limitNoMaximum number of periods or items to return (default 10, at most 200).
ratiosNoOptional: only these ratio ids (the grid is trimmed client-side; the call costs the same).
companyYesCompany identifier: a FinancialMD id ("fmd_01H..."), an SEC CIK ("cik:320193"), or a ticker ("ticker:AAPL", optionally with the MIC "ticker:AAPL.XNAS"). A bare ticker like "AAPL" is accepted and sent as ticker:AAPL. An issuer on an EU or UK regulated market that does not file with the SEC has no CIK: pass its LEI ("lei:IOG4E947OATN0KJYSD45") or its fmd_ id.
period_typeNoPeriod basis: annual (fiscal years), quarterly, ltm (last twelve months) or ytd (year to date).annual

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dataNoThe ratio grid: statement "ratios", period_type, view, currency, periods (most recent first) and one row per ratio id with cells aligned to periods.
metaNoRequest metadata: request_id, as_of, company resolution, coverage, pipeline_version, licence, terms, proof_base.
errorNoPresent only on isError results: the API error code and message plus remedy hints.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / company / description
      Previous value: -"Company identifier: a FinancialMD id (\"fmd_01H...\"), an SEC CIK (\"cik:320193\"), or a ticker (\"ticker:AAPL\", optionally with the MIC \"ticker:AAPL.XNAS\"). A bare ticker like \"AAPL\" is accepted and sent as ticker:AAPL."New value: +"Company identifier: a FinancialMD id (\"fmd_01H...\"), an SEC CIK (\"cik:320193\"), or a ticker (\"ticker:AAPL\", optionally with the MIC \"ticker:AAPL.XNAS\"). A bare ticker like \"AAPL\" is accepted and sent as ticker:AAPL. An issuer on an EU or UK regulated market that does not file with the SEC has no CIK: pass its LEI (\"lei:IOG4E947OATN0KJYSD45\") or its fmd_ id."
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The annotations already establish a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world operation, but the description goes well beyond them. It describes the output grid shape, ordering, cell alignment, fractional representation of margins and growth, proof-object structure, proof_get behavior, null-vs-NaN handling, and what as_of means for known facts. It also explains valuation edge cases such as data.price_basis and why valuation can be empty.

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 information-dense and front-loads the returned ratio categories before moving to output shape, null behavior, date semantics and sibling guidance. It avoids redundant restatement of the tool name and title. However, it is a single long paragraph with heavy semicolon-separated lists, so structure could be improved for readability.

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, the description is complete enough for correct invocation and interpretation: it covers the output grid, ratio semantics, valuation basis, missing-data behavior, as_of behavior and the alternative daily tool. Although an output schema exists, the description still adds necessary interpretation for agents, especially around fractions, nulls, proofs and valuation edge cases.

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 input schema already documents company identifiers, as_of, limit, ratios and period_type in detail. The description reinforces the as_of knowledge-date semantics and explains that the ratios filter still costs the same because trimming is client-side, but it does not add substantial new syntax or format guidance beyond the schema. A baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the parameter documentation.

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 and resource: it returns ratios FinancialMD computes from a company's standardized facts. It enumerates the ratio families covered, including margins, returns, leverage, growth, banking, insurance and valuation, so an agent can distinguish it from generic financials tools. It also explicitly names the sibling for daily valuation, ratios_daily, which sharpens the tool's scope.

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 an explicit usage trigger: use it when the question is about margins, returns, leverage, growth or valuation at period ends. It also provides an alternative for a different cadence, directing valuation on every trading day to ratios_daily. That is clear when/when-not guidance rather than an implied context.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources