Retrieve detailed information about company-issued notes with the FMP Company Notes API. Access essential data such as CIK number, stock symbol, note title, and the exchange where the notes are listed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| symbol | Yes | Stock symbol |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits beyond the operation itself. It does not mention whether this is read-only, any required permissions, rate limits, or output format/limitations, leaving the agent with limited safety or behavior context.
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?
Two concise sentences: the first states the purpose and API, the second lists key returned fields. No redundant or unnecessary text, and it is front-loaded with the verb and resource.
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 one-parameter retrieval with no output schema, the description provides sufficient context by listing representative fields (CIK, symbol, note title, exchange). It does not detail output shape (single note vs array) or edge cases, but it covers the core essentials.
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?
The single parameter 'symbol' is already fully documented in the schema as 'Stock symbol', and the description adds no additional parameter semantics. With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description simply references stock symbol as part of the returned data.
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 clearly states the action ('Retrieve detailed information') and the resource ('company-issued notes'), with concrete data examples. It does not explicitly distinguish this from related FMP tools or mention alternatives, so it falls short of full differentiation.
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 guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools (e.g., getCompanyProfile, getCIKList). It only describes what the tool does, not the conditions or context for using it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.