Valeur Intrinsèque

get_financial_statements

Last five reported years of one financial statement: income, balance, or cashflow. Not counted in the Score VI quota.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "symbol": "<symbol>",
      "statement": "<statement>"
    },
    "name": "get_financial_statements"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`symbol`	Yes	Stock ticker (e.g. AAPL)
`statement`	Yes	Statement type: income (income statement), balance (balance sheet), or cashflow (cash flow statement)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedOct 15, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / statement / description

Previous value: -"Type d'état financier : income (compte de résultat), balance (bilan), cashflow (flux de trésorerie)"New value: +"Statement type: income (income statement), balance (balance sheet), or cashflow (cash flow statement)"

changedInput schema / properties / symbol / description

Previous value: -"Ticker boursier (ex: AAPL)"New value: +"Stock ticker (e.g. AAPL)"

First observedOct 15, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses two behavioral traits: results are capped to the last five reported years and only one statement type is returned per call. It says nothing about permissions, data source, or response shape, leaving meaningful gaps for a no-annotation tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

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

Two short sentences with the core capability front-loaded and no padding. The second sentence about the Score VI quota is opaque but costs little, so the structure remains efficient.

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

Completeness3/5

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

There is no output schema, yet the description does not characterize the returned data beyond its five-year window and statement type. Combined with the absence of annotations, an agent must infer the read-only, safe nature and the response structure, leaving the definition adequate but not fully self-sufficient.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100% and both parameters are already documented in the schema, including the enum semantics for 'statement'. The description only restates those enum choices, adding no format or syntax detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (retrieves) and resource (financial statements) plus the exact scope: the last five reported years of a single statement type. The enum values are named, so an agent knows what it will get. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like analyze_stock or get_valuation_metrics, keeping it short of a 5.

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 implicitly defines the use case (pull raw historical statements rather than derived analysis) and constrains the call to one statement type at a time, but it never says when to prefer this over analyze_stock or get_valuation_metrics. The 'Score VI quota' note is a domain-specific aside that offers no actionable routing guidance.

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

All Valeur Intrinsèque 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?