Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

FinancialMD

by md.financial
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Fund type and share-class fees

fund_profile
Read-onlyIdempotent

Return a fund's type from its latest Form N-CEN (ETF, index, money market, interval, fund of funds...), closed-end fees and tracking difference where filed, and every share class with its prospectus fee table (expense ratio, management fee, 12b-1, waivers) as fractions of net assets (0.0003 is 0.03 percent). Give a series id (S000002839) or a class ticker (VOO). Use it when asked what kind of fund this is or what it charges.

Example tool call

This call uses example arguments supplied in the tool’s input schema.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "fund": "VOO"
    },
    "name": "fund_profile"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
fundYesSeries id or share-class ticker.
as_ofNoKnowledge date or timestamp (YYYY-MM-DD or RFC 3339). The answer is what FinancialMD knew at that instant: only facts whose known interval contains as_of. Omit for the current view.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dataNo{ fund { series_id, name, kind }, matched_class, census { flags, management_fee, net_operating_expenses, tracking_difference }, classes: [{ ticker, expense_ratio, expense_ratio_basis, fees }] }
metaNoRequest metadata: request_id, as_of, company resolution, coverage, pipeline_version, licence, terms, proof_base.
errorNoPresent only on isError results: the API error code and message plus remedy hints.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already establish this is a safe, idempotent, closed-world read, so the description wisely spends its words elsewhere: it discloses the data provenance (latest Form N-CEN), a non-obvious unit convention (fractions of net assets, 0.0003 = 0.03 percent), and a conditional-availability caveat ('where filed') for closed-end fees and tracking difference. It does not describe coverage gaps or fallback behavior when a field is absent, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

One dense paragraph, front-loaded with the return payload, then identifiers, then the use case, in the order an agent needs them. The parenthetical lists and unit convention earn their space, though the ellipsis-style fund-type enumeration is a touch loose for a definition this otherwise precise.

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 an output schema present, the description need not enumerate return fields, and it correctly spends its budget on units, provenance, and invocation forms instead. Annotations handle the safety profile and the schema handles both parameters, leaving little missing besides error behavior for an unknown or ambiguous identifier.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100 percent, so the schema already carries the mechanics of both parameters, making 3 the baseline. The description earns above baseline by giving concrete accepted identifier shapes ('S000002839', 'VOO'), which genuinely narrows agent guessing about what the fund parameter takes.

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?

Specific verb plus tightly enumerated resources: fund type from Form N-CEN, closed-end fees, tracking difference, and each share class's prospectus fee table. Sibling names like fund_holders, fund_holdings, and fund_nav occupy different ground (ownership, positions, price), and this description's focus on classification and fees makes the boundary clear without opening another schema.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The final sentence gives an explicit trigger ('when asked what kind of fund this is or what it charges'), which is precisely the decision an agent needs. It also states the acceptable identifier forms (series id S000002839 or class ticker VOO). It stops short of naming an alternative tool for the adjacent 'what does it hold' or 'what is it worth' questions, so it is clear context rather than full routing.

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

All FinancialMD toolsInspect
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