Skip to main content
Glama

Earnings Calendar

earnings_calendar
Read-onlyIdempotent

Twelve Data broad earnings calendar — upcoming and recent earnings announcements across all covered symbols. Returns symbol, date, EPS estimate, and time of day (before/after market).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
end_dateNoOptional end of range, "YYYY-MM-DD" or "YYYY-MM-DD HH:MM:SS".
start_dateNoOptional start of range, "YYYY-MM-DD" or "YYYY-MM-DD HH:MM:SS".

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
codeNoResponse code
statusNoResponse status
messageNoResponse message

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false. The description adds that it returns symbol, date, EPS estimate, and time of day, which provides behavioral context beyond annotations but does not disclose any restrictions or side effects.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is two concise sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the purpose and then lists return fields efficiently.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given the output schema exists and annotations cover safety and open-world behavior, the description sufficiently explains the tool's scope (all symbols, upcoming and recent) and return values. It is complete for a simple calendar tool with optional parameters.

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?

Both parameters (start_date, end_date) have descriptions in the input schema, achieving 100% coverage. The description does not add extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool provides a broad earnings calendar with upcoming and recent announcements across all covered symbols, and specifies the return fields (symbol, date, EPS estimate, time of day). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'earnings' by emphasizing broad coverage.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'earnings' for specific symbols). The description lacks explicit context about appropriate use cases or exclusions.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

While many tools have distinct purposes, there is notable overlap between price, quote, eod, and time_series for price data. Also, the multiple ask_pipeworx variants and deep_research could cause confusion about which to use for factual queries. Some tools like bet_research and polymarket_arbitrage also have overlapping domains.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tools follow a descriptive snake_case pattern (ai_visibility_check, ask_pipeworx, compare_entities). A few are single words (cryptocurrencies, indices, profile) which is acceptable. No mixing of camelCase or other conventions, so consistent overall.

Tool Count2/5

47 tools is quite high for a single server. While the domain is broad (financial data, prediction markets, SEC filings, etc.), many tools are highly specific (e.g., polymarket_arbitrage, bet_research, scan_dependency) and could be consolidated. The count feels bloated and adds cognitive load.

Completeness4/5

The tool set is impressively comprehensive, covering stocks, forex, crypto, economic data, SEC filings, prediction markets, entity resolution, and even claims validation. Minor gaps exist (e.g., limited drug data despite having some tools), but overall the surface supports a wide range of agentic workflows without obvious missing operations.