Retrieve recent SEC-reported values for revenue, cash, debt, income, or cash flow from a company's filings using its CIK.
List recent SEC values for a supported financial metric.
Supported metrics: revenue, cash, current_debt, net_income, operating_cash_flow.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cik | Yes | ||
| form | No | 10-Q | |
| count | No | ||
| metric | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.4.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It states that the tool lists values, implying a read-only operation, but fails to define 'recent,' explain the count/form defaults, or describe the output. No rate limits, auth requirements, or edge cases are mentioned.
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?
At just two sentences, the description is exceptionally lean and starts with the core action. The supported-metrics list is useful and placed toward the end, minimizing distraction. No unnecessary filler is present.
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 tool with four parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not clarify that periods are being returned, what cik should be, which forms are valid, or what 'recent' means. An agent would struggle to know what to pass for three of the four parameters.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It only enumerates valid values for the metric parameter; cik, form, and count are left completely unexplained. This is insufficient for an agent to construct valid arguments reliably.
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 uses 'List recent SEC values for a supported financial metric,' which is a specific verb-resource pairing. The explicit list of supported metrics helps disambiguate from broader financial tools, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like compare_financials.
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 explicit guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as compare_financials or search_company. The only usage hint is the supported metrics list, which implies eligibility but provides no exclusions or selection criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.