Standardized financials from SEC XBRL for the last 5 fiscal years and 4 quarters: revenue, operating and net income, diluted EPS, assets, liabilities, equity, cash, long-term debt, operating cash flow, capex, free cash flow and margins. Price: $0.005 USDC per call, paid with x402 on Base.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cik | No | SEC CIK (alternative to ticker) | |
| ticker | No | US ticker, e.g. AAPL (or use cik) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it usefully discloses the cost and payment mechanism ($0.005 USDC per call, paid with x402 on Base) plus the data coverage window. It does not disclose latency/freshness or output structure, which are secondary for a read-only retrieval tool but still gaps.
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 definition is two tightly written sentences that front-load the data scope and metric list, then separately state the pricing. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundant or filler text.
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 no output schema and no annotations, the description does a good job listing what data is returned and its time coverage. However, it does not clarify that at least one of ticker or cik must be supplied despite required parameters being zero, nor does it describe the return structure, leaving a meaningful gap for correct invocation.
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 100%, and the schema already explains that ticker and cik are alternatives. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 states a specific resource (standardized financials from SEC XBRL), a precise time scope (last 5 fiscal years and 4 quarters), and enumerates the metrics returned. It implicitly distinguishes itself from edgar_filings and edgar_insiders by focusing on standardized financial statements rather than filings or insider data.
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 gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and it does not mention the sibling EDGAR tools as alternatives. Usage is only implied by the data type, leaving the agent to infer that this tool should be chosen over edgar_filings when financial statement metrics are needed.
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.