Financial Analysis MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves data, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't cover important aspects like authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, data freshness, or whether it's a safe operation. The description is minimal and lacks behavioral context beyond the basic function.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose. The 'Args' and 'Returns' sections add structure without unnecessary verbosity. Every sentence contributes to understanding the tool, though the 'Returns' section could be slightly more specific about the dict structure.

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 moderate complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is somewhat complete but has gaps. It covers the basic function and parameters well, but lacks details on behavioral traits, usage context, and output specifics. Without annotations or an output schema, more information on data format, errors, and constraints would improve completeness.

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 description adds significant meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains that 'ticker' is for a stock symbol and 'indicator' specifies the type of financial statement (e.g., 'income_statement'), including examples. This compensates well for the schema's lack of descriptions, though it doesn't detail all possible values for 'indicator' or format requirements for 'ticker'.

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: retrieving specific financial statements (income statements, balance sheet, or cash flow) for a given stock ticker. It uses specific verbs ('retrieves') and resources ('annual income statements, balance sheet, or cash flow'), making the function unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'retrieve_stock_data' or 'retrieve_ticker_info', which might also retrieve financial data.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'retrieve_stock_data' or 'retrieve_ticker_info', nor does it specify prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual cues for choosing this tool over others. Usage is implied only by the tool's name and description, with no explicit when/when-not instructions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.