Access the full transcript of a company’s earnings call with the FMP Earnings Transcript API. Stay informed about a company’s financial performance, future plans, and overall strategy by analyzing management's communication.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| year | Yes | Year of the earnings call | |
| limit | No | Limit the number of results | |
| symbol | Yes | Stock symbol | |
| quarter | Yes | Quarter of the earnings call (e.g., 1, 2, 3, 4) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It only states 'Access the full transcript' implying a read operation, but it doesn't disclose response format, pagination, rate limits, or the need for prerequisites like knowing the correct year and quarter. The purpose is clear but the behavioral details are minimal.
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?
The description is short and front-loaded with the action verb 'Access'. The first sentence is efficient, but the second sentence about 'Stay informed' is marketing fluff that adds little value. It is appropriately compact but could be more precise.
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 has 4 parameters and no output schema or annotations, yet the description does not explain that year and quarter are required or suggest using sibling tools like getEarningsTranscriptDates or getEarningsTranscriptList to find the right identifiers. It lacks operational context for a correct invocation.
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 the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides; it only mentions 'full transcript' and 'company's earnings call' without elaborating on how symbol, year, quarter, or limit should be used.
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 tool accesses the full transcript of a company's earnings call, which is a specific verb+resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling transcript tools like getEarningsTranscriptList or getEarningsTranscriptDates, relying on the name and clarity rather than explicit contrast.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description mentions 'to stay informed' but does not state that this tool is for retrieving the actual transcript content, as opposed to listing available transcripts or dates. There are no exclusions or scenarios mentioned.
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.