Access detailed balance sheet statements for publicly traded companies with the Balance Sheet Data API. Analyze assets, liabilities, and shareholder equity to gain insights into a company's financial health.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Limit on number of results (default: 100, max: 1000) | |
| 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, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only says 'access' (implying read-only) but does not explain TTM specifics, data scope, limit semantics, or any potential caveats. The schema covers the limit parameter, but the description adds no extra behavioral context beyond the name itself.
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 and reasonably concise, but it includes a redundant product name ('Balance Sheet Data API') and a somewhat fluffy concluding phrase about gaining insights. It is not badly overlong, but every sentence does not fully earn its place.
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 tool's low complexity (2 params, no nested objects), the description is passable but incomplete. It fails to mention the crucial TTM distinction, which is essential for correct tool selection. Since there is no output schema, a clearer description of what the returned balance sheet contains and how 'limit' applies would strengthen completeness.
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 clear descriptions for 'symbol' and 'limit', so the structured metadata already explains the parameters. The description does not add any further meaning, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 states it provides 'detailed balance sheet statements for publicly traded companies' with a clear verb and resource, but it fails to mention the TTM (trailing twelve months) aspect that distinguishes this tool from siblings like getBalanceSheetStatement. This lack of differentiation makes it ambiguous which balance sheet variant to select.
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. It does not explain that this is the TTM version, nor does it mention exclusions or alternatives such as as-reported or growth statements. The only implied context is for analyzing financial health, which is too generic.
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.