Standardized company financials from SEC XBRL filings: revenue, net and operating income, diluted EPS, operating cash flow for the last 8 quarters and 5 years, plus cash, assets, liabilities, equity, debt and shares outstanding, with margins, year-over-year growth and trailing-12-month totals. Handles companies that changed reporting labels. Data, not investment advice.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ticker | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full operational burden. It does disclose rich output behavior (8 quarters/5 years coverage, edge-case handling when companies change reporting labels) and adds a 'data, not investment advice' disclaimer, but it says nothing about auth requirements, rate limits, or error behavior. Useful content disclosure, incomplete operational disclosure.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose and scope, closing with the disclaimer. No filler or repetition; every clause adds substantive information about coverage or semantics.
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?
With no output schema, the description correctly takes on the burden of describing returns in detail (fields, time coverage, derived metrics, TTM totals) and notes an important edge case. It falls short only on ticker format and data freshness/scope limitations.
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?
Only one parameter (ticker) and schema coverage is 0%, so the schema contributes nothing. The description implies a company identifier is supplied but gives no ticker format or exchange-suffix guidance, leaving the sole parameter under-specified.
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?
Specific verb (retrieves) and resource (standardized company financials from SEC XBRL filings), with an explicit enumeration of returned line items (revenue, net/operating income, diluted EPS, cash flow, balance-sheet items, margins, YoY growth, TTM). The scope is specific enough to separate it from wallstreet_company_brief, wallstreet_events, and wallstreet_insider_trades without opening any schema.
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?
Usage is implied (fetch financials for a ticker), but there is no explicit when-to-use, no named alternative, and no condition distinguishing it from wallstreet_company_brief or wallstreet_yield_curve. An agent can infer the intent but is not routed to the right sibling.
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.