Access the latest financial reports dates for publicly traded companies with the FMP Financial Reports Dates API. Track key financial metrics, including revenue, earnings, and cash flow, to stay informed about a company's financial performance.
| 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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure, but it misleads by implying the tool tracks financial metrics when the name indicates it only returns dates. It also doesn't disclose response formats, date ranges, or coverage limitations.
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 but the second sentence is filler that actively detracts from clarity by introducing irrelevant metric tracking. It doesn't earn its place, making the overall structure inefficient.
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 being a simple tool, the description omits essential details such as what specific dates are returned (e.g., filing dates vs. period end dates), time horizon, and whether any filtering is possible. The misleading metric sentence further reduces completeness.
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 schema already provides 100% coverage for the single 'symbol' parameter with its own description, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no extra semantic value for the parameter beyond what the schema states.
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 states the core purpose (access financial reports dates) with a specific verb and resource, but the second sentence about tracking metrics muddles the tool's actual function. It also doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling date-returning tools like getEarningsTranscriptDates or getForm13FFilingDates.
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 lacks any mention of exclusions, prerequisites, or why one would choose this over similar date-focused tools. The generic 'stay informed' phrase does not constitute actionable usage guidance.
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.