USERDATA

pull_statements

Fetches Yahoo Finance statements for a ticker at yearly, quarterly, or trailing timescales to support equity research.

Instructions

Stores Yahoo's statements; timescale is yearly, quarterly or trailing.

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": {
      "ticker": "<ticker>",
      "timescale": "<timescale>"
    },
    "name": "pull_statements"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ticker`	Yes
`timescale`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 8, 2026

TDQS

C2.6/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It does not clarify that the tool retrieves rather than stores data, nor does it mention permissions, rate limits, or any other operational traits. The output schema covers return structure, but the description leaves the mutation/read nature ambiguous.

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?

The description is a single compact sentence with no wasted words, and the timescale options are front-loaded. The wording is slightly confusing due to 'Stores', but the structure itself is 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?

For a two-parameter retrieval tool with no annotations, the description is under-specified. While the output schema covers return values, the description omits when to use the tool, what ticker format is expected, and what 'statements' actually includes.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does add valuable meaning for the timescale parameter by enumerating 'yearly, quarterly or trailing', which is absent from the schema. The ticker parameter is left undocumented but is relatively self-explanatory.

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?

The description identifies the resource (Yahoo's statements) and the timescale dimension, which separates it from price or profile siblings. However, the verb 'Stores' is misleading for a tool named pull_statements and does not clearly convey that it retrieves financial statement data.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus pull_facts, pull_filings, or pull_company, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The only usage-adjacent information is the list of valid timescale values.

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