FMP MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=true, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds useful context about returning simplified per-period financials and 3-year CAGRs, which clarifies the output format and scope beyond what annotations provide, though it doesn't detail rate limits or auth needs.

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 front-loaded with core functionality, followed by usage guidance and parameter details. Every sentence adds value: the first states what it does, the second clarifies output and usage, and the parameter explanations are concise and necessary given low schema coverage.

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's complexity (financial data retrieval with growth metrics), the description is complete: it explains purpose, usage context, parameters, and output characteristics (simplified per-period data and CAGRs). With annotations covering safety and an output schema existing, no further details on return values or behavioral risks are needed.

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 0%, so the description carries full burden. It explains each parameter's purpose: symbol as stock ticker, period as 'annual' or 'quarter' with default, and limit as number of periods with default. This adds meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema, though it could specify format constraints (e.g., symbol casing).

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 specific financial statements (income statement, balance sheet, cash flow data) with growth rates and CAGRs. It distinguishes from siblings by specifying this is for deeper analysis after company_overview, making the purpose specific and 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?

The description explicitly states when to use this tool: 'Use after company_overview for deeper analysis.' This provides clear context and distinguishes it from alternatives like company_overview, earnings_info, or stock_brief, which serve different analytical purposes.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.