polygon-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

reference_get_stock_financials

Retrieve historical financial data for stocks from SEC filings. Access income statements, balance sheets, and cash flow reports to inform investment decisions.

Instructions

Get historical financial data for a stock from SEC filings.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "reference_get_stock_financials"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`cik`	No
`sic`	No
`sort`	No	filing_date
`limit`	No
`order`	No	asc
`ticker`	No
`time_frame`	No
`filing_date`	No
`company_name`	No
`include_sources`	No
`period_of_report_date`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 31, 2026

TDQS

C2.4/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention return format, pagination, rate limits, or that multiple identifier parameters are optional, leaving the agent without insight into how the tool behaves beyond its basic purpose.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single sentence with no redundant wording, so it is technically concise. However, for a tool with 11 parameters and no additional context, it is under-specified rather than appropriately concise, lacking necessary detail.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness1/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity (11 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), this description is severely incomplete. It only communicates the core idea and omits essential context like input requirements, output expectations, and filtering options.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not reference any of the 11 parameters. It offers no guidance on what parameters mean, which are required, or how they interact, leaving the agent to guess from names and defaults alone.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a clear action ('Get') and resource ('historical financial data for a stock from SEC filings'), which distinguishes it from sibling reference tools like dividends and splits. However, 'financial data' is somewhat broad and could encompass many types of reports or metrics.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no mention of prerequisites such as needing a ticker or CIK, and no exclusions. The description only states what it does, not how to decide if it's the right tool.

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

Deploy Server