FMP MCP Server

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it describes pagination behavior ('Returns paginated transcript content with line-boundary snapping'), default fetching logic, and how to continue pagination ('Use next_offset from previous response to continue'), which annotations don't cover.

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 the core purpose, followed by usage rules and detailed parameter explanations. Every sentence adds value: the first states the purpose, the second explains default behavior, the third describes pagination, and the Args section efficiently documents all parameters without redundancy.

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 (5 parameters, pagination logic) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is complete. It covers purpose, usage rules, behavioral details like pagination, and full parameter semantics, leaving no gaps for the agent to operate effectively.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining all 5 parameters in the Args section. It provides clear semantics: symbol as 'Stock ticker symbol', year/quarter for fiscal period selection with omission logic, max_chars as 'Max characters to return per call', and offset for pagination with continuation guidance.

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 specific action ('Get an earnings call transcript') and resource ('for a company'), distinguishing it from siblings like earnings_info (which likely provides summary data) or stock_news (general news). It precisely defines what the tool retrieves.

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?

It explicitly states when to omit year/quarter ('When year/quarter are not specified, fetches the most recent available transcript') and provides pagination guidance ('Use offset + max_chars to paginate through long transcripts'). This clearly differentiates it from tools like earnings_info or financial_statements.

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