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) | |
| 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 behavioral disclosure, but it only offers generic marketing language about evaluating financial health. It does not disclose what the tool returns (e.g., a list of cash flow statements for a symbol), its read-only nature, defaults, or any side effects or limitations.
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 at two sentences, but the content is largely promotional and repetitive of the tool's name. It spends words on 'gain insights' and 'evaluate financial health' rather than providing concrete details, so the sentences do not fully earn their 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 large number of sibling tools for cash flow statements, this description is incomplete. It does not explain the TTM distinction, which is critical for selecting this tool, nor does it specify the output format or typical use cases. The schema covers parameters, but the high-level context is missing.
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 input schema already provides full descriptions for both parameters (symbol and limit) with 100% coverage. The description adds no parameter-specific information, so it earns the baseline score of 3.
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 that the tool provides insights into cash flow activities, but the verb 'analyze' is vague and does not clearly indicate that this tool returns cash flow statement data. It fails to mention the 'TTM' (trailing twelve months) scope that differentiates it from sibling tools like getCashFlowStatement, making its specific purpose ambiguous.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as getCashFlowStatement, getCashFlowStatementAsReported, or getCashFlowStatementGrowth. The description gives no context about use cases, prerequisites, or when TTM data would be preferred.
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.