get_financialsGet structured financial history for one CVR (read-only).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| year | No | Only return the fiscal year whose period ends in this calendar year, e.g. 2024. | |
| limit | No | Maximum number of annual statements to return, newest first (1 to 50), e.g. 5. Default 10. | |
| cvrnummer | Yes | Danish CVR number, exactly 8 digits as a string, e.g. "24256790" (Novo Nordisk A/S). Get it from search_companies or recommend_leads. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description's '(read-only)' merely restates that annotation and adds no new behavioral context such as rate limits, auth requirements, or result ordering.
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, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with the scope qualifier in a short parenthetical. Nothing is wasted.
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?
Annotations carry the safety profile and the schema fully documents the three parameters, but there is no output schema and the description says only 'structured financial history', leaving the shape of the returned data (which statements, which fields, pagination behavior) to inference.
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 100%, with year, limit, and cvrnummer each documented in detail (formats, ranges, defaults, provenance). The description adds no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 (get) and resource (structured financial history) scoped to a single CVR, so the agent can tell it returns financial statements rather than a company profile. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like get_company or search_companies, but the resource is unambiguous.
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?
The phrase 'for one CVR' implies this is a single-entity lookup keyed by an identifier retrieved elsewhere (the schema even names search_companies / recommend_leads as sources), but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance versus get_company.
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.