OptimistFi

get_fundamentals

Read-only

Financial statements from SEC XBRL — income statement, balance sheet, cash flow.

metrics: revenue · cost_of_revenue · gross_profit · operating_income · net_income ·
  eps_basic · eps_diluted · operating_cash_flow · assets · liabilities · equity · cash ·
  shares_outstanding. Omit for all of them.
period: "annual" or "quarterly". Balance-sheet metrics are always point-in-time ("instant")
  regardless, and must not be compared against a duration figure.
Each record names the XBRL concept it came from, since filers migrate between concepts and
the right one differs by era. Values are the most recently FILED for their period, so a
company's own restatement supersedes its original figure.
periods is how many periods to return PER METRIC; limit caps total rows. Omitting metrics
returns the headline set, not every available one.

When an investment case is cached, the response begins with that full case and one
metric_story per requested metric: latest value -> comparable-period change -> linked thesis
claim -> supports/challenges read -> limitation. The SEC-derived rows follow unchanged.
response_mode: "plain" returns a compact beginner-friendly explanation with exact comparison
values; "raw" returns only the source rows; "standard" and "deep" preserve the complete case.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Default
`end`	No
`limit`	No
`start`	No
`entity`	Yes
`period`	No	annual
`metrics`	No
`periods`	No
`reading_level`	No
`response_mode`	No	standard

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedSep 15, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations only say readOnlyHint=true, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure and does so extensively. It explains XBRL concept provenance, that values are the most recently FILED and can be superseded by restatements, that balance-sheet metrics are point-in-time and must not be compared with duration figures, and that cached investment cases alter the response shape. This is far 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.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is long but dense and well structured: it front-loads the core purpose, then uses parameter-name-led notes to convey exactly what each part means. Every sentence adds operational or interpretive value; there is no filler or repetition of schema defaults.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 9-parameter tool with no schema descriptions, the description covers the core semantics and output behavior thoroughly, including response modes and cached-case behavior. It does leave some optional parameters such as start, end, and reading_level unexplained, and it does not clarify the difference between 'standard' and 'deep' response modes, but the presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does for the most important parameters: metrics lists all values and omission behavior, period explains allowed values and a subtle point-in-time caveat, periods and limit clarify row counts, and response_mode explains each mode. However, start, end, entity, and reading_level are not described, so compensation is strong but incomplete.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool returns financial statements from SEC XBRL, specifically income statement, balance sheet, and cash flow, and enumerates the available metrics. This is a specific verb and resource, and the metric list helps differentiate it from nearby siblings like get_earnings or get_filings, though it never explicitly names an alternative or states what it is not.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies when to use this tool: whenever SEC-derived fundamentals or specific financial metrics are needed. However, it gives no explicit guidance about when not to use it or which sibling tools to prefer for earnings, filings, or valuation data. The usage context is clear but not contrasted with alternatives.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All OptimistFi tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?