Get time-series of segment values across periods for trend analysis.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| ticker | Yes | ||
| concept | No | revenue | |
| frequency | No | yearly |
| 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 for behavioral disclosure. It only states the tool returns time-series data but does not mention any behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication requirements, or what happens with missing data. The description is minimal and does not add significant transparency.
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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the tool's purpose. Every word carries meaning with no redundancy or filler.
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?
Given the tool has 4 parameters and an output schema exists, the description is adequate but incomplete. It states it returns time-series for trend analysis but does not explain how segments are defined, the meaning of concept/frequency, or how to interpret results. However, the output schema may supplement return value information, so it is minimally viable.
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%, meaning the description does not explain any parameters. The input schema provides defaults and titles (e.g., concept default 'revenue', frequency default 'yearly'), but the description adds no extra meaning or context for how parameters affect the output. This is insufficient given 4 parameters.
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 specific action 'Get time-series of segment values across periods for trend analysis'. It uses a specific verb (Get) and resource (segment values) and distinguishes from sibling tools like get_segments (likely point-in-time) and get_metrics_history (different resource) by emphasizing trend analysis across periods.
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?
The description implies usage for trend analysis but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_segments or get_metrics_history. No when-not-to-use or prerequisites are mentioned. The context is clear but lacks explicit guidance.
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.
