list_callsEarnings calls (id, date, quarter, words, flags), newest first.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "list_calls"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to | No | ||
| from | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| format | No | ||
| offset | No | ||
| symbol | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description usefully adds the ordering ('newest first') and the shape of each record, which matters because there is no output schema. It says nothing about pagination behavior (limit/offset) or result caps, which is the remaining gap for a list tool.
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?
A single front-loaded fragment with zero wasted words, and the parenthetical field list is an efficient way to convey return shape. It is arguably undersized for a six-parameter tool, but nothing in it is redundant.
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?
For a tool with six optional parameters, no output schema, and no parameter documentation anywhere, one sentence is not enough. The partial return-field hint is a bright spot, but an agent gets no explanation of filtering, pagination, or format selection.
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?
All six parameters (to, from, limit, format, offset, symbol) have 0% schema description coverage, so the description carries the full burden and does not meet it. The field names it lists are output fields, not parameters, and it never explains that from/to filter by date, that symbol scopes by company, or that format controls serialization.
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 identifies the resource (earnings calls) and even enumerates the fields returned (id, date, quarter, words, flags) plus the sort order, so an agent knows what it will get. It never states a verb explicitly and gives no hint of how it differs from siblings like search, history, or upcoming, so it falls 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.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
'newest first' is the only behavioral cue; there is no statement of when to call this versus search, history, upcoming, or fetch. With 13 sibling tools in the namespace, the absence of any routing guidance leaves selection entirely to inference.
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.