Skip to main content
Glama
io.github.benjamin-di/earnings-watch

io.github.benjamin-di/earnings-watch

by benjamin-di

Earnings Upcoming

earnings_upcoming
Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve upcoming verified earnings dates, including timing uncertainty, to plan around confirmed or tentative reporting windows.

Instructions

R0. List upcoming verified dates, including explicit timing uncertainty.

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": "earnings_upcoming"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
daysNo
limitNo
scopeNofollowing
typesNo
cursorNo
tickersNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.3.1

TDQS

C2.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so safety is covered. The description adds only a hint that returned dates carry explicit timing uncertainty, but it says nothing about what "verified" excludes, how the default 'following' scope behaves, or pagination via cursor – meaningful gaps for a list tool with six parameters.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

It is short, but the leading "R0." token is unexplained noise that reads like an internal revision marker, and the single sentence is too terse to be front-loaded with useful information. Brevity here reflects under-specification rather than concision.

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

Completeness2/5

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

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, but for a six-parameter, zero-description-coverage list tool the definition leaves the most important details – what 'verified' means, what scope values do, what types filters on – entirely unaddressed. It is not complete enough for reliable invocation.

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?

Six parameters with 0% schema description coverage, and the description explains none of them. The agent gets no meaning for days, limit, scope, types, cursor, or tickers, so the description fails to compensate for the undocumented schema.

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

Purpose3/5

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

"List upcoming verified dates" gives a verb and resource, and the tool name supplies the earnings context, so the intent is broadly inferable. However, "verified dates" is not defined and nothing distinguishes it from siblings such as earnings_calendar_plan or earnings_get_events, which plausibly also surface upcoming earnings dates.

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?

No when-to-use guidance is given at all – no statement about when this is preferred over earnings_get_events, earnings_calendar_plan, or earnings_changes, and no prerequisites. The agent must infer selection from the tool name alone.

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