Get the source code/formulas of an open-source financial calculator.
Only available for views that have been published as open-source.
Returns the calculation logic as a readable TSV showing fields,
types, defaults, and formulas.
Args:
owner_username: The view owner's username
viewname: The view's URL slug
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| viewname | Yes | ||
| owner_username | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context by specifying the return format (readable TSV with fields, types, defaults, formulas) and the open-source availability constraint, going beyond what annotations provide.
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 reasonably concise and well-structured, with a clear opening sentence, a usage constraint, return format, and an Args section. It avoids unnecessary fluff, though the Args block could be slightly tighter.
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?
For a simple read-only tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the key aspects: what it does, availability constraints, return format, and parameter meanings. It does not explain error behavior or what happens when a view is not open-source, but this is not critical for the tool's basic 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?
The input schema has no parameter descriptions (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It provides brief definitions for both parameters, including the useful detail that viewname is the URL slug. However, the explanations are minimal and mostly restate the parameter names.
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 tool retrieves source code/formulas for an open-source financial calculator, using a specific verb and resource. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like get_view_signature or calculate_view, but the function is distinct enough that purpose is unambiguous.
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 provides a clear prerequisite: it is only available for views published as open-source. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as calculate_view or get_view_signature, so usage guidance 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.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.