The FMP Rating Bulk API provides users with comprehensive rating data for multiple stocks in a single request. Retrieve key financial ratings and recommendations such as overall ratings, DCF recommendations, and more for multiple companies at once.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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 must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions bulk retrieval but does not explain how the stock universe is selected given the tool has zero input parameters, nor does it disclose output structure, limits, or any side effects. This leaves significant ambiguity.
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 brief at two sentences and front-loads the core purpose. The first sentence is somewhat generic ('provides users with comprehensive rating data'), but the second adds concrete examples. Overall it is acceptable with minimal waste.
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?
There is no output schema, no annotations, and no parameter information. The description fails to explain how the bulk set is determined, what exact fields are returned, or any response structure. For a tool with zero input parameters, this lack of context leaves significant gaps for an agent.
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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema description coverage is 100% (empty schema). There are no parameter semantics to clarify, and the baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4. The description adds no misleading details beyond mentioning 'multiple stocks,' which is acceptable.
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 rating data for multiple stocks in a single request, naming specific content like overall ratings and DCF recommendations. This distinguishes it from single-stock rating tools like getRatingsSnapshot or getHistoricalRatings.
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 implies usage when you need ratings for many companies at once, but it does not explicitly state when to use this over related bulk tools (e.g., getFinancialScoresBulk, getPriceTargetSummariesBulk) or when not to use it. No alternatives or exclusions are provided.
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.