Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
serenity-data-mcp

serenity-data-mcp

by wcheng2001-del
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Local

get_financial_statement

Retrieve income, balance, or cash-flow statements for A-share and US equities by ticker, statement type, and optional frequency to analyze financial performance.

Instructions

Get an income, balance, or cash-flow statement for an A-share or US equity.

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>",
      "statement": "<statement>"
    },
    "name": "get_financial_statement"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
tickerYes
frequencyNoquarterly
statementYes
as_of_dateNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It explains the general purpose but does not disclose whether this returns a single period or time series, how as_of_date affects results, what units/format the statement uses, or any limitations.

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 tightly written, with no filler or redundant content. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, though it is so terse that it omits useful invocation guidance.

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?

Given four parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is not complete enough for reliable invocation. The agent can infer the statement type choice but cannot determine the meaning of frequency or as_of_date, nor what the returned statement contains.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the parameters. It indirectly hints at the 'statement' parameter's possible values by naming income, balance, and cash-flow statements, but it says nothing about ticker format, frequency, or as_of_date behavior.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description uses a specific verb and resource: 'Get an income, balance, or cash-flow statement.' It clearly enumerates the statement types and the market scope (A-share or US equity), which is enough to distinguish this from the sibling tools like get_stock_prices or get_company_news.

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?

The description states what the tool retrieves but gives no guidance on when to use it instead of related siblings such as get_company_fundamentals or how it differs from them. No conditions, exclusions, or alternative routing are provided.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools