[Regulatory Filings] Retrieve analyst earnings estimate revisions — EPS upgrades/downgrades over the lookback window.
Args: ticker: Required ticker symbol days_back: Lookback window — maps to 30d / 60d / 90d
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ticker | Yes | ||
| days_back | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds that it returns upgrades/downgrades over a lookback window, but does not clarify the parameter mapping (e.g., default 14 not matching listed 30/60/90) or other behavioral details.
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 short and front-loaded with the main purpose. The 'Args:' section is present but could be clearer. Overall efficient with minimal wasted 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?
The description covers the basic function and parameters, but lacks information on return format, valid days_back values, and fails to help the agent choose among similar regulatory-filings 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?
With 0% schema coverage, the description partially compensates by naming 'ticker' and 'days_back' with brief descriptions. However, the mapping for days_back ('30d / 60d / 90d') is inconsistent with the default value of 14, causing potential confusion.
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 analyst earnings estimate revisions focusing on EPS upgrades/downgrades. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like get_analyst_targets, which may also involve earnings estimates.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only implies usage for earnings revisions but does not mention when not to use or list alternative tools.
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.
Many tools have overlapping functionality across categories (e.g., multiple search_arxiv, search_google_scholar, real estate tools, DNS/WHOIS checks). An agent would struggle to differentiate between similar tools from different categories, leading to ambiguity.
Tools follow a 'category__verb_noun' pattern mostly, but verbs vary (get, search, screen, check, etc.) and some categories use different orders (e.g., 'get_repo_stats' vs 'search_repos'). The consistency is acceptable but not uniform across the entire set.
With 152 tools, the server is excessively large for a single MCP server. While it aims to be an all-in-one gateway, the sheer number overwhelms the agent and likely exceeds practical limits for coherent selection.
The server covers a wide range of domains (finance, real estate, news, developer tools, etc.) but has notable gaps (e.g., social media APIs, CRM tools). Coverage is broad but not exhaustive, and some niche areas (e.g., global stock exchanges) are over-represented.