Retrieve financial statements for Turkish companies by company code and periods using IFRS, BDDK, or insurance metadata.
Şirket finansal tablolarını IFRS, BDDK veya sigorta metadata bilgisiyle getirir.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| mode | No | full | |
| periods | Yes | ||
| company_code | Yes | ||
| consolidation | No | prefer_consolidated | |
| include_ratios | No | ||
| statement_types | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read operation but discloses nothing about permissions, pagination, rate limits, latency, or how the IFRS/BDDK/insurance modes differ in behavior.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. However, its brevity crosses into under-specification for a 6-parameter tool, so it is efficient rather than optimal.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. But for a 6-parameter tool with 0% parameter coverage, no annotations, and no usage guidance, the description is far too thin to let an agent invoke it correctly across its IFRS/BDDK/insurance variants.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0% across 6 parameters, yet the description adds almost no parameter meaning. The mention of IFRS/BDDK/insurance metadata loosely hints at a mode-like distinction but never maps to 'mode', 'consolidation', 'statement_types', or the structure of 'periods'.
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 names a specific verb ('getirir' / retrieves) and resource ('şirket finansal tabloları' / company financial statements), and scopes it with the frameworks covered (IFRS, BDDK, insurance metadata). It is clear what the tool returns, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings such as get_disclosure or query_disclosures.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling disclosure/financial tools. No alternatives, preconditions, or exclusions are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer routing entirely on its own.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.