The Bulk Income Statement Growth API provides access to growth data for income statements across multiple companies. Track and analyze growth trends over time for key financial metrics such as revenue, net income, and operating income, enabling a better understanding of corporate performance trends.
| 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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It mentions data access and metrics but does not disclose return format, pagination, rate limits, authentication needs, or whether it covers all companies. This is a significant gap for an API tool.
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?
Two sentences, with the first being informative and the second somewhat filler ('enabling a better understanding'). Efficient but not maximally concise; no redundant repetition of schema.
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, so description should explain return values. It does not, and it also fails to clarify how 'multiple companies' are selected given only year and period parameters. Ambiguity about whether this returns all companies or requires additional inputs makes it incomplete.
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 baseline 3 applies. The description does not add additional meaning to the year and period parameters beyond what the schema already provides, but it does not need to since they are well-documented.
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 provides growth data for income statements across multiple companies, with specific examples of metrics (revenue, net income, operating income). This distinguishes it from single-company tools like getIncomeStatementGrowth and other bulk tools.
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 'across multiple companies' phrase implies usage for bulk/multi-company scenarios, but it does not explicitly contrast with single-company alternatives or provide when-not guidance. Usage context is implied rather than stated.
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.