Get quarterly or annual financial statements for a company (revenue, net income, EPS, margins, cash flow, debt ratios) from SEC 10-K/10-Q filings.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Number of periods to return (default 8) | |
| ticker | Yes | Stock ticker symbol (e.g. 'AAPL', 'MSFT') | |
| period_type | No | Period type — quarterly (10-Q) or annual (10-K) | quarterly |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
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 identifies the data source (SEC filings) and indicates it's a read operation, but it does not disclose potential error conditions, authentication needs, rate limits, or behavior for invalid tickers. The listing of metrics is helpful but not comprehensive for transparency.
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 a single, well-structured sentence that places the purpose and key details upfront. Every part adds value without redundancy.
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 type of data returned and the source. However, since there is no output schema, a brief note on the return format (e.g., array of periods) would improve completeness. Otherwise, it is adequate for a simple data retrieval tool with few parameters.
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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds context by mentioning the financial statement items and the SEC source, which are not in the parameter descriptions. This enhances understanding beyond the schema alone.
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 quarterly or annual financial statements with a specific list of metrics (revenue, net income, EPS, etc.) from SEC filings. This verb+resource combination is distinct from siblings like get_stock_price or get_stock_profile.
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 context is implied (when you need financial statement data), but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any mention of prerequisites or limitations.
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 resource and action, and descriptions explicitly disambiguate similar pairs (e.g., get_congress_member vs get_congress_trades, get_crypto_holder vs get_crypto_holders). No two tools appear to do the same thing.
The dominant pattern is get_<noun>, with list_<noun> for enumerations. Minor deviations exist: a bare 'search' tool and the 'sec_' prefix on SEC filing tools break the uniform verb_noun style, but the pattern remains predictable.
At 24 tools, this is on the heavier side, but the server spans multiple financial data domains (SEC filings, stocks, insider trading, crypto, rates, economics), so each tool has a clear purpose. It is just below the 'too many' threshold.
The tool surface is remarkably complete for financial data retrieval: SEC filing lifecycle is covered (list -> index -> document), institutional ownership is available from both stock and institution perspectives, and insider/congress/crypto/economic data are all present. No obvious gaps or dead ends.