Analyze the growth of key balance sheet items over time with the Balance Sheet Statement Growth API. Track changes in assets, liabilities, and equity to understand the financial evolution of a company.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Limit on number of results (default: 100, max: 1000) | |
| period | No | Period (Q1, Q2, Q3, Q4, or FY) | |
| symbol | Yes | Stock symbol |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states a high-level purpose but doesn't disclose whether growth is shown as percentages or absolute changes, how periods are represented, or what the response structure looks like. This leaves key behavioral traits undocumented.
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 two sentences with no fluff, front-loading the purpose and adding a meaningful second sentence about tracking assets/liabilities/equity. Slight redundancy with the tool name is acceptable; overall efficiently sized.
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 the absence of annotations and output schema, the description should provide more detail about return values or growth presentation. It doesn't explain what the API response contains, how growth is calculated, or handle edge cases. This leaves the agent under-equipped to interpret results.
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 all three parameters (symbol, period, limit) are already documented. The description adds domain context (assets, liabilities, equity) but doesn't clarify parameter semantics beyond the schema, matching the baseline for complete schema coverage.
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?
Description uses a specific verb 'Analyze' and identifies the resource as 'growth of key balance sheet items' with explicit scope (assets, liabilities, equity). It clearly conveys the growth-focused nature, distinguishing it from raw balance sheet siblings via the 'growth' term, though it doesn't name alternatives.
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?
Usage is implied: use when you want to track changes in balance sheet items over time. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives (e.g., getBalanceSheetStatement, getBalanceSheetStatementTTM) or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer context.
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.