Retrieve a company's owner earnings with the Owner Earnings API, which provides a more accurate representation of cash available to shareholders by adjusting net income. This metric is crucial for evaluating a company’s profitability from the perspective of investors.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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 burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the concept of owner earnings but does not detail the tool's operational behavior, such as return format, authentication requirements, or whether it is read-only. The verb 'retrieve' implies a read operation, but lacks explicit transparency about the response structure.
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 relatively concise at two sentences, with the main action front-loaded in the first sentence. However, the phrase 'with the Owner Earnings API' is redundant given the tool name, and the second sentence has some promotional tone that could be trimmed. Overall, it is efficient but not perfectly minimal.
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 tool's simplicity (single parameter, no output schema), the description provides sufficient context for an agent to understand its purpose and the meaning of owner earnings. It lacks details about the return structure, but for such a straightforward retrieval tool, the description is mostly complete.
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 has 100% coverage with a single parameter 'symbol' described as 'Stock symbol'. The description adds no additional meaning or context to the parameter, so it does not go beyond the schema. The baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema already fully documents the parameter.
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 retrieves a company's owner earnings, a specific financial metric. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on owner earnings, which is unique among the listed tools. The verb 'retrieve' is specific and the resource is well-defined.
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 context on when to use the tool: when evaluating profitability from an investor's perspective, as owner earnings is a more accurate representation of cash available to shareholders. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the use case is clearly implied.
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.