Access comprehensive disclosure data for mutual funds with the FMP Mutual Fund Disclosures API. Analyze recent filings, balance sheets, and financial reports to gain insights into mutual fund portfolios.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cik | No | Optional CIK number | |
| year | Yes | Year | |
| symbol | Yes | Fund symbol | |
| quarter | Yes | Quarter |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full responsibility. It implies a read-only operation ('Access', 'Analyze') and hints at data scope ('recent filings'), but it doesn't disclose limitations, prerequisites, or response format. This gives some transparency but not enough.
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 two sentences, free of unnecessary verbosity. It front-loads the main purpose and gives a secondary insight into usage. No wasted words, though 'comprehensive' is slightly fluff.
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?
Given the tool has 4 parameters (3 required), no output schema, and no annotations, the description should provide more context. It doesn't explain what the response looks like, why year and quarter are needed, or how the optional CIK interacts. It's adequate for a basic understanding but leaves gaps for an agent to invoke correctly.
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 coverage is 100% (every parameter has a minimal description), so the baseline is 3. The description adds context about the domain (mutual funds, filings) but doesn't clarify the exact role of each parameter, particularly the optional CIK number. It doesn't go beyond the schema labels significantly.
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 uses a specific verb 'Access' with a clear resource ('disclosure data for mutual funds') and further specifies the data type ('recent filings, balance sheets, financial reports'). However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like getFundDisclosureDates or getFundHoldings, so it's clear but not fully differentiated.
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. It doesn't mention what makes this tool unique, nor does it suggest conditions or alternatives. This is a clear gap given the large sibling list.
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.