Assess a company's financial strength using the Financial Health Scores API. This API provides key metrics such as the Altman Z-Score and Piotroski Score, giving users insights into a company’s overall financial health and stability.
| 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. It states the API 'provides key metrics' but does not clarify return format, whether it returns historical data or a single snapshot, or how the 'limit' parameter affects results. The description is vague about operational 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 concise, two sentences, and front-loads the purpose. No unnecessary words, but it could be slightly more informative without becoming verbose.
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?
The tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description needs to explain what the tool returns and any caveats. It mentions the metrics but not the shape of the response or the significance of 'limit' (e.g., historical scores). The description is incomplete for an agent to fully understand the tool's output and behavior.
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 both parameters are already well-documented. The description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate because 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: to assess a company's financial strength using specific scores (Altman Z-Score and Piotroski Score). The verb 'assess' and resource 'company's financial strength' are specific, but it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools like getFinancialScoresBulk or getKeyMetrics, which serve similar purposes.
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. There are no explicit usage scenarios, exclusions, or mentions of sibling tools. Given the large number of similar financial metrics tools, this is a significant gap.
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.