Gain insights into a company's cash flow activities with the Cash Flow Statements API. Analyze cash generated and used from operations, investments, and financing activities to evaluate the financial health and sustainability of a business.
| 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 the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It does not mention return format, whether historical data is provided, required inputs, or any operational details. It only gives a generic purpose statement, which provides minimal insight into actual tool behavior.
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 short but padded with vague marketing language like 'Gain insights' and 'evaluate the financial health and sustainability.' The first sentence is redundant with the tool name, and neither sentence provides concrete operational information, so it is under-specified rather than concise.
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?
With no annotations and no output schema, the description needs to explain return values and usage context, but it does not. It lacks information about what data is returned, how to interpret results, or any limitations. The schema covers parameters, but the description is insufficient for a complete understanding of the 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?
The schema description coverage is 100%, with 'symbol', 'limit', and 'period' all documented. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies. It does not clarify how parameters affect the output or provide examples.
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 identifies the resource as a company's cash flow statement and explains it analyzes operations, investments, and financing activities. It is specific about the subject matter but does not distinguish it from sibling tools like get_cash_flow or getCashFlowStatementTTM, so it lacks sibling differentiation.
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 compared to alternatives. It only implies usage for cash flow analysis without mentioning exclusions, prerequisites, or when to choose a different cash flow tool such as getCashFlowStatementTTM or getCashFlowGrowth.
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.