Annalist Financial Statements

Get data quality

get_data_quality

Read-onlyIdempotent

How far the figures of a company are proven: the values published, confirmed by a check, confirmed by a second document, derived from reported figures and withheld, with the meaning of each measure; every withheld value with its reason and documents; and every restated figure with the first, latest and published value, each with its document and filing date.

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>"
    },
    "name": "get_data_quality"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`at`	No	an ISO date: the snapshot that was the latest on that date, in place of the latest snapshot
`limit`	No	maximum withheld values and restated figures each (default 50)
`company`	Yes	company id from search_companies, for example apple or mizuho

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	No
`page`	No
`as_of`	No
`company`	Yes
`citation`	Yes
`measures`	No
`restated`	Yes
`snapshot`	Yes
`withheld`	Yes
`truncated`	No
`conventions`	No
`measures_note`	No
`restated_total`	Yes
`withheld_total`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedOct 31, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and closed-world behavior, so safety is covered. The description adds useful semantic context about what 'data quality' decomposes into (confirmation tiers, withheld values with reasons, restatement history), but says nothing about volume, limits or how the snapshot date affects results beyond what the schema states.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

It is a single long semicolon-chained sentence with no leading verb and no front-loaded summary of the tool's action. The content largely earns its place, but the structure makes it harder to scan than a short lead sentence followed by enumerated content would be.

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?

With a full output schema and complete parameter descriptions, the definition covers enough for correct invocation: it explains the quality taxonomy and what withheld/restated sections contain. The remaining gap is routing guidance relative to sibling tools, which keeps it below 5.

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%, so company, at, and limit are fully documented in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, which is acceptable but not additive; 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?

The description clearly conveys the resource: the provenance/quality status of a company's reported figures, including confirmation levels, withheld values and restatements. It is specific enough that an agent can distinguish it from get_ratios or get_statement, but it never explicitly contrasts itself with siblings and opens with a noun phrase rather than a verb.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as get_sources or get_findings, which plausibly overlap with this content. The agent must infer usage entirely from the resource description.

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

All Annalist Financial Statements 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?