Retrieve detailed workforce information for companies, including employee count, reporting period, and filing date. The FMP Company Employee Count API also provides direct links to official SEC documents for further verification and in-depth research.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Limit on number of results (default: 100, max: 10000) | |
| symbol | Yes | Stock symbol |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It adds context by mentioning that the response includes reporting period, filing date, and direct links to SEC documents. However, it does not disclose potential limitations such as rate limits, pagination, or whether only the latest employee count is returned. This is a moderate level of transparency.
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 concise, consisting of two sentences. The first sentence front-loads the primary purpose and key data fields, while the second sentence adds valuable context about SEC document links. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundant information.
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?
Despite having no output schema, the description lists the main return fields (employee count, reporting period, filing date, SEC links), which gives a reasonable picture of the response. However, it does not clarify whether this tool returns current or historical data, which is important given the existence of getHistoricalEmployeeCount. This minor gap prevents a perfect score.
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 input schema already describes both parameters (symbol and limit) with 100% coverage. The description does not add any additional meaning to these parameters, such as clarifying the meaning of 'limit' in the context of employee counts. Since the schema is fully documented, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 retrieves detailed workforce information including employee count, reporting period, and filing date. It uses the verb 'Retrieve' and specifies the resource (workforce information for companies), making the purpose clear. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling tool getHistoricalEmployeeCount, so it falls short of a 5.
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?
The description does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like getHistoricalEmployeeCount. It mentions that the data can be used for verification and research, but gives no explicit use cases, exclusions, or prerequisites. This leaves usage decisions to the agent without clear direction.
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.