Canli Fundamentals

History as known on two dates

vintage_diff

Read-onlyIdempotent

A company's history as known on two dates: each period whose value changed between them, with the filing that changed it, and how many periods were first reported in between.

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": {
      "company": "<company>",
      "from": "<from>"
    },
    "name": "vintage_diff"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`to`	No	Default today.
`from`	Yes	Values as known on this date.
`limit`	No	Default 25.
`offset`	No	next_offset from the last page.
`company`	Yes	Ticker (AAPL), CIK or company name.
`concept`	No	Default: every concept.
`periods`	No	annual (default), quarterly, or all (adds year-to-date).

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`to`	No
`from`	No
`rows`	No
`limits`	No
`changed`	No
`columns`	No
`company`	No
`meaning`	No
`compared`	No
`snapshot`	No
`truncated`	No
`next_offset`	No
`first_reported_between`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 10, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive, and an output schema exists, so the safety and return-shape burden is largely covered elsewhere. The description usefully adds the diff semantics (only periods whose value changed, the changing filing, plus a first-reported count), but says nothing about pagination behavior, cost, or empty-diff cases.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that enumerates the three things returned, with no filler. It is dense but every clause carries information; a short lead phrase naming the operation would make it marginally sharper.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a 7-parameter read-only tool with a full schema, an output schema, and rich annotations, the description covers the core semantics adequately. The notable remaining gap is disambiguation from the semantically adjacent siblings (known_as_of, restatements, vintages), which an agent must resolve by name alone.

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%, with defaults documented for to, limit, concept, and periods, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only implies the from/to pairing via 'two dates' and adds no extra meaning such as default window, pagination via offset, or concept-scoping behavior — baseline 3.

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-like operation and resource: a company's history diffed between two dates, returning changed periods, the filing that changed each, and a count of newly-first-reported periods. It is precise about output content, but never names or distinguishes itself from close siblings such as known_as_of, restatements, or vintages.

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?

Usage is only implied by the 'two dates' framing — an agent can infer this is for comparing what was known at two points in time, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or named alternative (e.g., 'use known_as_of for a single date, restatements for restatement-only changes').

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

All Canli Fundamentals 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.