Get cash flow statement (OCF, ICF, FCF, capex, dividends).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| ticker | Yes | ||
| frequency | No | quarterly | |
| fiscal_year | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether data is historical only, if it supports custom date ranges, currency, or units. The description lacks important behavioral context beyond listing return items.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise at one sentence, but it lacks structure such as bullet points or sections. It is efficient but could be better organized for readability.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having an output schema (which reduces need to explain returns), the description is insufficient given the tool's complexity (4 parameters, financial data). It omits how to specify fiscal periods, what limits do, or how frequency interacts with results. The description is incomplete for effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%. The description does not explain any of the four parameters (ticker, limit, frequency, fiscal_year). For example, it does not mention that frequency defaults to 'quarterly' or what fiscal_year accepts. The description adds no parameter-level meaning.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'cash flow statement', and lists specific components (OCF, ICF, FCF, capex, dividends). It distinguishes from siblings like get_balance_sheet and get_income_statement by naming unique cash flow items.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or context for selecting this tool over siblings like get_financials.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct financial data aspect (e.g., balance sheet vs income statement vs cash flow; different holding types; metrics vs history). No overlapping purposes.
All tools follow verb_noun pattern with snake_case (e.g., get_balance_sheet, compare_metrics). Consistent and predictable.
19 tools is slightly above the typical 3-15 range but covers a broad domain (statements, metrics, holdings, screening). Still reasonable and well-scoped.
Covers most key financial data needs: statements, metrics, insider trades, institutional holdings, screen/search. Minor gaps like earnings estimates or dividend history are absent but core workflows are complete.
