Analyze a company's financial performance using the Financial Ratios API. This API provides detailed profitability, liquidity, and efficiency ratios, enabling users to assess a company's operational and financial health across various metrics.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Limit on number of results (default: 100, max: 1000) | |
| period | No | Period (Q1, Q2, Q3, Q4, FY, annual, or quarter) | |
| 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 must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says the API 'provides detailed ratios' and does not mention response format, default time periods, rate limits, or whether this returns quarterly vs TTM data. This is a meaningful transparency gap.
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 two sentences and gets to the point quickly. It is slightly repetitive in mentioning 'Financial Ratios API' and the purpose, but it remains compact and front-loaded.
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 three simple parameters and no output schema, the description gives a general idea of the returned ratio categories but omits details such as which specific ratios appear, how the period parameter affects results, and how this compares to TTM variants. It is adequate for basic selection but not fully 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 input schema already describes all three parameters (symbol, limit, period) with 100% coverage, so the description does not need to repeat them. The description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond the schema, hence the baseline score.
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 it analyzes a company's financial performance and provides profitability, liquidity, and efficiency ratios, so the core purpose is clear. However, it does not distinguish this from closely related siblings like getFinancialRatiosTTM or getKeyMetrics, so it misses the top score.
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 implies use when assessing a company's operational and financial health via ratios, but it does not specify when to prefer this over getFinancialRatiosTTM, getKeyMetrics, or other financial ratio tools. There are no clear exclusions or alternative guidance.
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.