get_stats
Platform statistics. Free.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Cabrini MCP
by ai.cabrini
TDQS
D1.8/5.0
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Free' and 'Platform statistics,' with no mention of return format, data source, side effects, or limitations. This is extremely lacking and does not inform the agent about what happens when the tool is invoked.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short but under-specified to the point of being a fragment. 'Free' appears as an unrelated addition and does not help clarify the tool's purpose. This is not concise writing; it is incomplete writing.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no annotations, no output schema, and a minimal description, the tool definition is incomplete. Given the sibling tools are data-focused, it is unclear what 'platform statistics' refers to or what the agent can expect. The description offers no context for correct usage or interpretation of results.
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 is empty with zero parameters, so there is nothing to explain. The baseline score for 0 parameters is 4, and the description correctly does not need to add parameter details. No additional parameter semantics are needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Platform statistics. Free.' is a noun phrase with no verb, so it doesn't explicitly state an action. It vaguely refers to platform-level statistics but does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like get_bars or get_filings. It essentially restates the tool name without adding specific functionality.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no examples, and no mention of prerequisites. The only extra information is 'Free,' which relates to cost, not usage context. This provides no help for an AI agent deciding between get_stats and its siblings.
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.
TDQS
B3/5.0
Disambiguation2/5
Several tools overlap significantly: get_bars, query_minute_bars, query_range, and query_batch all provide intraday bar data, making it hard to distinguish when to use which. Additionally, get_brief and get_fundamentals overlap in fundamentals coverage. The descriptions do not clearly delineate boundaries between these tools.
Naming Consistency3/5
The naming pattern is a mix of get_* and query_* prefixes, with list_ and scan_ as exceptions. While each individual name is readable, similar operations like get_bars and query_minute_bars use different verbs, making the overall convention inconsistent.
Tool Count4/5
15 tools is a reasonable count for a comprehensive financial data server, covering market data, fundamentals, filings, insiders, and scanning. The count is not excessive, though the overlapping intraday bar tools suggest some redundancy that could be consolidated.
Completeness4/5
The tool surface is fairly complete for its domain, offering intraday and daily market data, fundamentals, SEC filings, insider transactions, company profiles, and market scanning. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no dedicated dividend/split tool), but these are not critical and can be worked around via existing tools like get_brief.