atlas7_company_fundamentalsSubscription-gated filing-backed fundamentals surface.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cik | No | Issuer CIK when ticker is not supplied. | |
| limit | No | Maximum rows to return. | |
| ticker | No | Issuer ticker, for example IREN. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already convey safe read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds that access is subscription-gated and data is filing-backed, which is useful context, but it does not describe return behavior, pagination, or what happens when access is denied.
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?
The description is very short and contains no filler, but it is under-specified and uses vague jargon like 'surface.' Its brevity is not backed by substance, making it only minimally acceptable as a concise description.
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?
The tool benefits from strong annotations (read-only, idempotent, open-world) and a full output schema, which lowers the description's burden. However, the description still lacks a clear operation and usage context, so it is only minimally complete for a low-complexity tool.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with every parameter (cik, limit, ticker) explicitly documented. The description itself adds no parameter-level meaning, so the schema baseline of 3 applies.
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 is a noun phrase ('Subscription-gated filing-backed fundamentals surface') with no verb; it never states that the tool retrieves or lists company fundamentals. It largely restates the title with modifiers, so it does not clearly convey the tool's operation or distinguish it from sibling tools.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no exclusions, and no mention of how it differs from similarly named tools like deltasignal_company_fundamentals or atlas7_company_report_inputs. The agent is left without context for tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.