Finance Tools MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions what types of statements can be retrieved and frequency options, but doesn't describe critical behavioral aspects: whether this requires authentication, rate limits, what format the data returns (e.g., raw numbers, structured JSON), whether it's a read-only operation, or any potential errors. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.

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 concise and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first two words. The additional details about types and frequency are efficiently presented in a single sentence. There's no wasted text, though it could benefit from slightly more structure (e.g., bullet points) for clarity.

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 complexity of financial data retrieval (3 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., structured financial data, raw text), any authentication requirements, error handling, or how it differs from sibling tools. For a tool with no structured support, the description should provide more context to guide effective 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?

The description adds some semantic context beyond the schema: it explicitly lists the statement types (income, balance, cash) and frequency options (quarterly, annual), which correspond to the enum values in the schema. However, with 0% schema description coverage, it doesn't explain the 'ticker' parameter or provide additional details like format examples or constraints. The description partially compensates but doesn't fully address the coverage gap for all three parameters.

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 as 'Get financial statements' with specific types listed (income, balance, cash), which is a clear verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_earnings_history' or 'get_ticker_data', which might also provide financial data, leaving some ambiguity about when to use this specific tool versus alternatives.

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 like 'get_earnings_history' or 'get_ticker_data'. It lists frequency options (quarterly, annual) but doesn't explain when to choose one over the other or any prerequisites for usage. There's no mention of context or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage scenarios.

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