Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Finagent MCP

Finagent MCP

by finuchetai
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

get_cashflow

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve cash movement data for specified months from connected financial reports to assess cash flow rather than profit.

Instructions

Cash movements, not profit. Unknown as_of cannot be replaced by received_at or used to claim fresh data.

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": {
      "months": "<months>"
    },
    "name": "get_cashflow"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
monthsYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds a data-freshness caveat about unknown as_of not being substitutable by received_at, which is real behavioral context, but it is cryptic and unexplained — the agent cannot tell what as_of or received_at actually are.

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?

Two short, front-loaded sentences with no filler. However, the second sentence is dense and allusive without setup, so its brevity comes at the cost of comprehensibility rather than being purely efficient.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should convey what comes back — units, currency, period granularity — and it does not. For a cash-movement reporting tool with an undocumented required parameter, the definition leaves too much for the agent to guess.

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?

The single parameter 'months' has 0% schema description coverage, so the schema supplies a bare array of strings with no format or examples. The description does not mention months at all, leaving the agent with no guidance on the expected string format (e.g., YYYY-MM) or ordering.

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?

"Cash movements, not profit" identifies the resource and implicitly contrasts it with the get_pnl sibling, which is genuinely useful. But it never states the retrieval action or that results are scoped to the requested months, so the purpose is only inferred rather than declared.

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?

The contrast with profit hints at when to prefer this over get_pnl, but no alternative is named and no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use condition is given. Nothing tells the agent when get_balances or get_pnl would be the better call.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools