TradingAgents MCP

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

financial_statement

Retrieve a ticker’s income statement, balance sheet, or cash flow statement as of a specified date, with quarterly or annual frequency and no later restatements.

Instructions

One financial statement as it stood on as_of (no later restatements or filings).

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "ticker": "<ticker>",
      "statement": "<statement>"
    },
    "name": "financial_statement"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`freq`	No	quarterly
`as_of`	No
`ticker`	Yes
`statement`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.3.0Nov 7, 2026

TDQS

C2.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one real behavioral trait: the data is as-reported as of 'as_of', excluding later restatements or filings. It does not state that this is a read-only operation, whether it returns one period or many, what happens when as_of is null, or anything about response shape.

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 single sentence is efficient, front-loads the resource, and contains no filler, which is good. However, for a four-parameter tool with zero schema documentation, one short sentence is undersized rather than appropriately sized.

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 explained, but the description leaves a 0%-coverage parameter set and a no-annotation safety profile entirely undocumented. Given the enums and the null-defaulted as_of, an agent lacks enough information to call this correctly without guessing.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it only gestures at 'as_of' as a point-in-time reference. It adds nothing about 'ticker', 'statement', or 'freq' (both enum params), and does not clarify the default behavior when as_of is null or freq defaults to quarterly.

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?

It states the resource ('One financial statement') and adds a meaningful qualifier about data vintage ('as it stood on as_of, no later restatements or filings'), but never says which statement (income/balance/cashflow, chosen via the 'statement' param) or how it differs from the sibling 'fundamentals' tool. An agent can guess the intent but must open the schema to confirm scope.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as 'fundamentals' or 'company_news'. The point-in-time wording implicitly suggests use for historical/as-reported analysis, but that is left for the agent to infer.

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