Access balance sheets as reported by the company with the As Reported Balance Statements API. View detailed financial data on assets, liabilities, and equity directly from official filings.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Limit on number of results (default: 100, max: 1000) | |
| period | No | Period type (annual or quarter) | |
| symbol | Yes | Stock symbol |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior, but it only mentions 'directly from official filings' without covering pagination, limits, period defaults, or response structure. It does not contradict any annotations, but the lack of additional behavioral context (e.g., whether it returns historical or just latest data) is a significant gap.
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 concise, with two sentences that front-load the primary action and resource. The first sentence is somewhat redundant with the tool name but adds 'as reported by the company.' The second sentence provides useful detail on data content. No superfluous information is included.
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?
Given no output schema and only three simple parameters, the description adequately conveys the core purpose and data scope. However, given the high number of sibling balance sheet tools, it lacks sufficient context to disambiguate usage. It covers the essential 'what' but not the 'when' or 'why' nuances.
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%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, but it does mention the content type (assets, liabilities, equity) which indirectly relates to what the data represents. It neither enriches nor detracts from the schema's clarity.
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 clearly states the tool accesses balance sheets as reported by the company, with specific mention of assets, liabilities, and equity from official filings. It uses a specific verb ('access') and names the resource ('As Reported Balance Statements API'), distinguishing it from standard or growth balance sheet tools, though it could more explicitly contrast with 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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like getBalanceSheetStatement or getBalanceSheetStatementTTM. It implies the 'as reported' nature but does not state explicit use cases or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer context from the tool name and sibling list.
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.