Valuein — SEC EDGAR Fundamentals & Smart-Money Data

Submit Feedback

submit_feedback

File product feedback to the Valuein team — a bug, feature request, experience note, or data-quality issue — directly from the agent surface. Available on EVERY tier including guest/sample (no token required), so an agent can report a rough edge in-band without the human leaving the conversation. Provide a category and a message (other fields optional — see params). Authenticated callers can pass an idempotency_key so a retried submission files exactly once (the same key from the same account); guest/sample callers are never deduplicated. Returns a friendly acknowledgment you can relay to the user. Do NOT use this to query data; it is a one-way report channel.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`reason`	No	Optional structured error-mode reason: 'wrong_number', 'bad_citation', 'missing_data', 'wrong_company', 'formatting', 'hallucinated_fact', 'tool_error', 'coverage_gap', or 'other'.
`context`	No	Optional free-form context object (stored as JSON), e.g. { tool: 'get_company_fundamentals', ticker: 'AAPL', request_id: 'abc123' }. Avoid secrets.
`fact_id`	No	Optional disputed `fact_id` (for wrong_number / bad_citation feedback).
`message`	Yes	The feedback body (1–4000 chars). Be specific: what you expected, what happened, and any reproduction steps. May contain the user's own words — it is stored for triage and never used for arithmetic.
`subject`	No	Optional short title (≤140 chars) summarizing the feedback.
`surface`	No	Optional product surface the feedback concerns: 'mcp', 'workspace', 'sdk', 'dashboard', or 'api'.
`category`	Yes	What kind of feedback this is: 'bug' (something broke), 'feature_request' (something missing), 'experience' (UX / clarity / docs), 'data_quality' (a wrong/missing/stale figure), or 'other'.
`severity`	No	Optional impact classification: 'low', 'medium', or 'high'.
`sentiment`	No	Optional sentiment of this feedback: 'positive' (worked well), 'negative' (something was wrong), or 'correction' (you are supplying the right value).
`target_id`	No	Optional id of the artifact this feedback targets (e.g. a report or thesis id).
`request_id`	No	Optional `_meta` request id of the turn that produced the artifact, for correlation.
`target_type`	No	Optional kind of artifact the feedback targets: 'chat_message', 'report', 'thesis', 'claim', 'tool_call', 'schema', or 'other'.
`expected_value`	No	Optional caller-asserted correct value, in your own words. Stored verbatim for triage — NEVER computed or trusted as data.
`idempotency_key`	No	Optional client-supplied key (1–64 chars). For authenticated callers, reusing the same key files the feedback exactly once — safe to retry on a network error. Ignored for guest/sample callers (no account to scope dedup to).

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`_meta`	Yes	Provenance envelope — data lineage for every MCP response
`feedback`	Yes
`acknowledgment`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

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"
+}

Changed7 schema fields changedJun 27, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / expected_value

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Optional caller-asserted correct value, in your own words. Stored verbatim for triage — NEVER computed or trusted as data.",
+  "maxLength": 4000,
+  "type": "string"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / fact_id

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Optional disputed `fact_id` (for wrong_number / bad_citation feedback).",
+  "maxLength": 256,
+  "type": "string"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / reason

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Optional structured error-mode reason: 'wrong_number', 'bad_citation', 'missing_data', 'wrong_company', 'formatting', 'hallucinated_fact', 'tool_error', 'coverage_gap', or 'other'.",
+  "enum": [
+    "wrong_number",
+    "bad_citation",
+    "missing_data",
+    "wrong_company",
+    "formatting",
+    "hallucinated_fact",
+    "tool_error",
+    "coverage_gap",
+    "other"
+  ],
+  "type": "string"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / request_id

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Optional `_meta` request id of the turn that produced the artifact, for correlation.",
+  "maxLength": 256,
+  "type": "string"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / sentiment

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Optional sentiment of this feedback: 'positive' (worked well), 'negative' (something was wrong), or 'correction' (you are supplying the right value).",
+  "enum": [
+    "positive",
+    "negative",
+    "correction"
+  ],
+  "type": "string"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / target_id

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Optional id of the artifact this feedback targets (e.g. a report or thesis id).",
+  "maxLength": 256,
+  "type": "string"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / target_type

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Optional kind of artifact the feedback targets: 'chat_message', 'report', 'thesis', 'claim', 'tool_call', 'schema', or 'other'.",
+  "enum": [
+    "chat_message",
+    "report",
+    "thesis",
+    "claim",
+    "tool_call",
+    "schema",
+    "other"
+  ],
+  "type": "string"
+}

Changed1 schema field changedJun 18, 2026
- addedOutput schema / properties / _meta / properties / pit_safe / description
```
Added value: +"true iff a zero-look-ahead point-in-time cut was applied to every returned figure"
```
AddedJun 17, 2026

TDQS

A4.9/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

The description adds significant context beyond annotations, such as the one-way nature, idempotency key handling for authenticated vs guest callers, and that it returns a friendly acknowledgment. No contradictions with annotations.

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?

The description is well-structured with the core purpose first, followed by key details. Every sentence adds value, and it is concise despite covering many aspects. No unnecessary repetition.

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 (14 params, 2 required, output schema present), the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, usage, behavioral traits, parameter guidance, and expected return. It is fully adequate for an agent to use 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by summarizing required fields (category, message) and optional fields, and explaining idempotency_key behavior. It provides helpful context that enhances the schema.

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 clearly states the tool is for filing product feedback (bug, feature request, etc.) and specifies that it is a one-way report channel. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by emphasizing it is not for querying data and is available on every tier.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool (to report rough edges in-band) and when not to use it (do not use to query data). It also explains idempotency key behavior and availability across tiers, providing clear 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

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a distinct purpose with detailed descriptions that clarify differences. Overlaps like get_peer_comparables vs screen_universe are well-differentiated by scope (single company vs cross-sectional). Similarly, get_insider_sentiment vs get_smart_money_flow are clearly distinguished by data sources and methodology.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (e.g., create_report, get_financial_ratios, delete_alert). No mixing of conventions or inconsistent verbs.

Tool Count2/5

With 69 tools, the count far exceeds the 25+ threshold for 'too many'. While the domain is broad, the sheer volume likely overwhelms agents and increases selection complexity.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers a wide range of SEC filings, ratios, smart-money data, alerts, reports, and more. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no options or detailed debt data), but most analyst workflows are supported.

Submit Feedback

Input Schema

Output Schema

Schema Changelog

TDQS

Glama MCP Gateway

TDQS

Resources