list_recentQuarterly results reported in the last N days, newest first.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "list_recent"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| days | No | Default 14 | |
| limit | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| results | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful ordering behavior ('newest first') and the recency window, but says nothing about what 'reported' keys off (filing date vs. period end) or pagination behavior.
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?
A single sentence that front-loads the resource and the filter, with zero redundant wording. Nothing in it could be cut without losing information.
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?
An output schema exists, so return format need not be described, and annotations cover the safety profile. The remaining gaps are the undocumented 'limit' parameter and the absence of routing guidance among the many sibling listing/search tools.
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 50%: 'days' has only 'Default 14' in the schema, so the description's 'last N days' genuinely adds meaning, and the max of 120 is undocumented. The 'limit' parameter has no description anywhere, and the description does not compensate, so the baseline 3 holds.
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?
States a specific verb+resource ('Quarterly results') plus a recency filter and sort order, so the agent knows exactly what the tool returns. It does not, however, distinguish itself from siblings like get_quarter or search_earnings, leaving ambiguity about which is preferred.
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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given, and no alternative is named. The 'last N days' framing implies a recency use case, but an agent cannot tell from the description whether this or get_quarter should be called for a specific quarter.
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.