The Bulk Balance Sheet Statement API provides comprehensive access to balance sheet data across multiple companies. It enables users to analyze financial positions by retrieving key figures such as total assets, liabilities, and equity. Ideal for comparing the financial health and stability of different companies on a large scale.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| year | Yes | Year (e.g., 2023) | |
| period | Yes | Period (Q1, Q2, Q3, Q4, FY) |
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 must carry full behavioral disclosure. It does not mention pagination, response size, rate limits, or how the tool selects companies given only year and period parameters. 'Comprehensive access' is vague and does not disclose return format, data volume, or any constraints.
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 three sentences, but the first sentence is vague ('comprehensive access') and the second is somewhat redundant. It is not excessively long, but it could be more direct and better structured with key details front-loaded.
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?
There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description should explain return structure, bulk behavior, and usage boundaries. It only mentions key figures and comparing companies, leaving major gaps for a bulk API tool, including how to specify companies and what the response contains.
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 coverage for the two parameters (year, period) is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds context about the data content (total assets, liabilities, equity) but does not clarify the missing company selection parameter or how 'bulk' works with only year/period, which could confuse agents.
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 identifies the tool as a 'Bulk Balance Sheet Statement API' that provides balance sheet data for multiple companies, with specific fields (total assets, liabilities, equity). The word 'Bulk' distinguishes it from single-company balance sheet siblings, though it lacks a direct action verb like 'returns' or 'retrieves'.
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 states it is 'Ideal for comparing the financial health and stability of different companies on a large scale,' which clearly indicates when to use it. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the bulk versus single-company distinction is implied by the name and description.
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.