Retrieve upcoming earnings calendar — report dates, EPS estimates, revenue estimates.
Args: days_forward: Calendar horizon in days (default 14) ticker: Optional ticker filter (post-filtered)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ticker | No | ||
| days_forward | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. Description adds that ticker is 'post-filtered', which is a behavioral trait. However, it does not elaborate on potential pitfalls or limitations given openWorldHint.
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 concise: one line captures purpose, then an Args block. Front-loaded, no unnecessary words, and well-structured.
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 the tool has two optional params, no output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description sufficiently covers what to expect. Could mention potential absence of data or pagination, but not critical for this simple read tool.
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 0%, but the description compensates by explaining 'days_forward' as calendar horizon with default 14, and 'ticker' as optional post-filter. This adds meaningful context beyond parameter names and defaults.
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 an upcoming earnings calendar with report dates, EPS estimates, and revenue estimates. It differentiates from sibling 'get_earnings_estimates' by including report dates, but does not explicitly distinguish from all siblings.
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 guidance on when to use this tool instead of siblings like 'get_analyst_targets' or 'get_earnings_estimates'. No exclusions or alternative recommendations provided.
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 regulatory filing or financial data type with clear, non-overlapping descriptions. Even similar concepts like 13F holdings vs. delta are well-differentiated.
Most tools follow a consistent 'get_<noun>' pattern, with a single exception 'detect_insider_cluster'. Overall naming is predictable and readable.
17 tools is slightly above the ideal 3-15 range but justified by the broad domain of regulatory filings and financial data. Each tool serves a clear purpose.
The server covers a comprehensive set of regulatory filings (13F, Form 4, 8K, etc.) and additional financial data (analyst targets, options, short interest). Minor gaps like Form 144 are acceptable given the scope.