finstack-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 and lists the specific financial metrics returned (assets, liabilities, receivables, etc.). However, it omits other behavioral traits such as data freshness, caching behavior, or whether the operation is read-only.

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 well-structured with clear section headers (Args, Examples) and a front-loaded purpose statement. Every section adds value, particularly the examples which demonstrate valid input patterns without unnecessary verbosity.

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 simple parameter structure (2 primitive types) and existence of an output schema, the description provides adequate coverage by detailing parameter semantics and summarizing return values. It could be improved by explicitly contrasting with related financial statement tools (income_statement, cash_flow).

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 schema has 0% description coverage, but the description fully compensates by documenting both parameters in the Args section with clear semantics, format examples for the symbol parameter (RELIANCE, TCS, AAPL), and explicit default behavior for the quarterly flag (False = annual).

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 retrieves balance sheet data using specific verbs ('Get') and resources ('balance sheet'). It implicitly distinguishes from siblings like income_statement and cash_flow by listing balance sheet-specific line items (assets, liabilities, equity), though it does not explicitly reference these alternative tools.

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 usage examples demonstrating quarterly versus annual data retrieval, which offers implied guidance on parameter usage. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to select this tool over sibling financial statement tools like cash_flow or income_statement.

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