FilingDelta

Company guidance-change card (paid $0.05)

get_guidance

Read-onlyIdempotent

Paid $0.05 USDC on Base. Call when you need how a company's own forecast moved between its last two results releases (8-K Item 2.02 Ex. 99.1): each item labelled raised, lowered, maintained, initiated or withdrawn, or result vs forecast, with old and new quotes and an EDGAR citation. Free sample over HTTP: /sample/guidance/{ticker}. Tickers: NFLX. Others return 404 (no charge).

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "ticker": "<ticker>"
    },
    "name": "get_guidance"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ticker`	Yes	Ticker

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`period`	No
`ticker`	Yes
`changes`	Yes
`company`	No
`accession`	No
`period_end`	No
`source_url`	Yes
`filing_date`	No
`filing_type`	Yes
`generated_at`	No
`comparison_basis`	No
`high_materiality_count`	No
`new_material_items_count`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 10, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the bar is low, yet the description adds substantial context beyond them: exact price ($0.05 USDC on Base), payment rail, the free sample endpoint, the 404-without-charge failure mode, and the shape of returned items with citations. That is precisely the cost, failure, and output context an agent needs before paying for a call.

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?

It is a single dense paragraph with no filler sentences, and each element (cost, trigger, output labels, sample, ticker limit) earns its place. The only mild weakness is that price leads the description, slightly ahead of the purpose statement, though for a paid tool that ordering is defensible.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be spelled out, yet the description still summarizes item labels and citation contents. Combined with cost, payment mechanism, supported ticker, and no-charge error behavior, nothing material is missing for an agent to call this 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 the baseline would be 3, but the description adds real meaning: it confirms NFLX is the only supported ticker and specifies that any other ticker returns 404 with no charge, which the schema's bare 'Ticker' description does not convey. The only shortfall is that it does not discuss casing or URL placement for the sample endpoint's ticker.

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 names a specific resource and scope: how a company's own forecast moved between its last two results releases, sourced from 8-K Item 2.02 Ex. 99.1. It further enumerates the output taxonomy (raised, lowered, maintained, initiated, withdrawn, result vs forecast) with old/new quotes and an EDGAR citation, so an agent can tell exactly what it will get and how it differs from a generic filing or delta tool.

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?

It gives an explicit trigger: 'Call when you need how a company's own forecast moved between its last two results releases.' It also offers a free sample path over HTTP and states that non-NFLX tickers return 404 with no charge, which is a clear usage boundary. It stops short of naming any sibling MCP tool (e.g. a delta or bundle tool) as an alternative, so routing is implied rather than fully explicit.

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

All FilingDelta 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.

Resources

Need Help?