Retrieve structured financial statements for IDX tickers. Use integer selectors to match Stockbit's UI toggles for data, report, and statement types.
Financial statements (structured tables; the large HTML report is stripped). data_type/report_type/statement_type are integer selectors matching Stockbit's UI toggles.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| symbol | Yes | IDX ticker | |
| data_type | No | ||
| report_type | No | ||
| statement_type | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark this as read-only and non-destructive, and the description adds useful behavioral context: the large HTML report is stripped and results are delivered as structured tables. It also explains that the integer selectors mirror Stockbit's UI toggles. There is no contradiction with annotations.
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 a single dense sentence with no filler. It front-loads the output format and then clarifies the parameter semantics, making every part useful in a compact form.
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?
For a four-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description gives the return shape (structured tables) and basic selector semantics, but it lacks actual selector values and default behavior. It is sufficient for a basic symbol-only call but incomplete for correct optional-parameter usage.
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?
Only symbol is described in the schema (25% coverage), so the description partially compensates by stating that data_type, report_type, and statement_type are integer selectors matching Stockbit's UI. However, it does not enumerate valid values or explain what each selector controls, which remains a significant gap.
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 identifies the resource as financial statements and clarifies that the output is structured tables after stripping the HTML report. It is distinguishable from siblings like ratios, keystats, and technicals, though it lacks an explicit verb such as 'retrieves' or 'returns'.
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 when-to-use guidance or alternative routing is provided. The description neither names sibling tools nor states conditions under which financials is preferred over ratios, keystats, or other related tools. Usage context is only implied by the tool name and the phrase 'financial statements'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.