get_ratiosMargins, returns (ROE/ROA), leverage and liquidity ratios for a ticker, derived from SEC EDGAR fundamentals. Price-based ratios (P/E, P/B) excluded.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ticker | Yes | US stock ticker, e.g. 'AAPL'. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint) already indicate safe, non-mutating behavior. Description adds context about derivation source and excluded ratio types, beyond annotations.
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?
Two sentences with no wasted words. First sentence lists ratio categories and source, second clarifies exclusion. Information is front-loaded.
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 read-only retrieval tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description sufficiently covers included/excluded ratios and source, leaving no ambiguity.
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 coverage is 100% with one parameter described as 'US stock ticker, e.g. AAPL'. Description adds no additional parameter details beyond the schema.
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?
Description clearly states it computes margins, returns (ROE/ROA), leverage, and liquidity ratios from SEC EDGAR fundamentals, and explicitly excludes price-based ratios (P/E, P/B). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_fundamentals.
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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. Implied usage is for obtaining fundamental ratios, but alternatives like get_fundamentals are not compared.
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 SEC EDGAR resource and action: company info, filings, fundamentals, ratios, insider trades, activist stakes, fund holdings, events, and narrative sections. There is no overlap in purpose, and descriptions clarify any potential ambiguity (e.g., get_activist vs get_holdings).
All tools follow a consistent 'get_' prefix followed by a singular or plural noun (e.g., get_company, get_filings, get_ratios). The pattern is uniform and predictable, making it easy to infer behavior from the name.
Nine tools is well-scoped for a financial data server covering company profiles, regulatory filings, and derived metrics. Each tool has a clear, non-redundant role, neither feeling sparse nor bloated.
The surface covers the core EDGAR resources: company metadata, filings, financial statements, ratios, insider activity, activist filings, fund holdings, material events, and narrative sections. Minor gaps exist (e.g., direct search for specific filing types or proxy statements), but agents can accomplish most research workflows without dead ends.