Finagent MCP

get_pnl

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve accrual profit and loss for selected closed months from prepared financial reports to review period performance and flag unknown data dates.

Instructions

Accrual P&L for closed periods. as_of=null means unknown data date; received_at is retrieval time, not freshness.

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_pnl"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`months`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 14, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the description's job is to add the non-obvious. It does: it warns that as_of=null means an unknown data date and that received_at is retrieval time rather than data freshness, a misinterpretation trap an agent would otherwise fall into. The only weakness is that it introduces these field names without saying where they appear.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the resource and scope; no filler. The second sentence is dense but references undefined fields, which costs a little clarity rather than length.

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

Completeness3/5

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

With no output schema, the description should carry more of the return shape, yet it only hints at two fields (as_of, received_at). It communicates the accrual basis and closed-period scope, but leaves the result structure, month format, and currency/aggregation behavior unexplained.

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 sole parameter 'months' has 0% schema description coverage, and the description never says what format it takes (e.g. '2024-01'), whether closed-period months only are valid, or what happens for unknown months. Instead it spends words on as_of and received_at, which are not parameters, so it does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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

Purpose4/5

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

Names a specific resource and basis: 'Accrual P&L for closed periods.' An agent can distinguish it from get_cashflow and get_balances by resource, though the description never explicitly contrasts with those siblings and uses no verb.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

'For closed periods' is an implied scope constraint that tells the agent when the tool is applicable, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no pointer to an alternative for open or provisional periods.

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

Deploy Server