Retrieve a company's income statement by stock symbol from Yahoo Finance, with yearly, quarterly, or trailing frequency options for financial analysis.
Get the income statement for a given stock symbol.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| freq | No | Statement frequency. Defaults to "yearly". | yearly |
| symbol | Yes | Stock symbol in Yahoo Finance format. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Input schema / properties / freq / defaultAdded value: +"yearly"Input schema / properties / freq / descriptionPrevious value: -"At what frequency to get cashflow statements. Defaults to \"yearly\". Valid freqencies: \"yearly\", \"quarterly\", \"trainling\""New value: +"Statement frequency. Defaults to \"yearly\"."Input schema / properties / freq / enumAdded value: +[
+ "yearly",
+ "quarterly",
+ "trailing"
+]v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses nothing beyond an implicit read operation. It does not say whether results are limited in history, what currency/units the figures use, whether the call is rate-limited or authenticated, or what happens with an invalid symbol.
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 zero filler, which is structurally clean. It is arguably too terse for a financial-statement tool with no output schema, but nothing is wasted.
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?
The tool is low-complexity (two parameters, one required, no nested objects) and the schema is self-documenting, so the description is minimally sufficient to invoke it. With no output schema, however, it gives no hint about the shape of the returned statement or which periods are covered.
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 100%, so both parameters (symbol format, freq enum with default) are already fully documented in the schema. The description's phrase "for a given stock symbol" adds no meaning beyond that, making the baseline 3 appropriate.
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 states a specific verb (Get) and resource (income statement) scoped to a stock symbol, so an agent knows exactly what it returns. It does not, however, differentiate itself from adjacent financial-statement siblings like get_cashflow or get_company_overview, which a reader must disambiguate on their own.
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 offers no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance. It never mentions that get_cashflow covers the cash-flow statement or that get_company_overview may be the better entry point, so routing must be inferred from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.