Retrieve recent and upcoming earnings dates for a stock symbol, with an optional limit, to track company earnings schedules.
Get recent and upcoming earnings dates.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum number of earnings dates, from 1 to 100. | |
| symbol | Yes | Stock symbol in Yahoo Finance format. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Input schema / properties / limit / defaultAdded value: +12Input schema / properties / limit / descriptionPrevious value: -"max amount of upcoming and recent earnings dates to return. Default value 12 should return next 4 quarters and last 8 quarters. Increase if more history is needed."New value: +"Maximum number of earnings dates, from 1 to 100."Input schema / properties / limit / typePrevious value: -"string"New value: +"integer"v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It discloses the temporal scope ('recent and upcoming') but omits auth needs, rate limits, return format, or whether it is a safe read-only operation, leaving significant behavioral gaps.
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 a single sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or wasted structure.
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?
For a simple read-only list tool with two fully documented parameters, the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it does not explain return values or safety profile, leaving notable gaps for an agent.
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 coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents both parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the resource name; it does not clarify symbol format or the limit's effect, so it meets the baseline only.
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?
States a clear verb 'Get' and resource 'earnings dates' with scope 'recent and upcoming'. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_earnings_analytics and get_upcoming_dividends by resource type, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or clarify its unique scope relative to them.
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?
No when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives are provided. The description merely states what the tool does without indicating when an agent should select it over related tools such as get_earnings_analytics.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.