Financial Modeling Prep MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does but doesn't describe critical behaviors: whether it's read-only or mutating, what format the results are in, if there are rate limits, authentication requirements, or error conditions. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 efficiently structured in two sentences: the first states the core purpose, and the second elaborates on the API's scope. There's no wasted text, though it could be slightly more front-loaded with key usage details. Overall, it's appropriately concise.

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 complexity of tracking ownership changes during acquisitions, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the output looks like, how results are structured, or any behavioral constraints. For a tool with 2 parameters and significant domain complexity, this leaves too many gaps for effective agent use.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents both parameters (symbol and limit). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema—it doesn't explain parameter interactions, valid symbol formats, or limit implications. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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's purpose: 'Track changes in stock ownership during acquisitions' using a specific API. It specifies the resource (stock ownership structure) and context (acquisitions, mergers, takeovers). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'searchMergersAcquisitions' or 'getLatestMergersAcquisitions', which prevents a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions tracking ownership changes during acquisitions but doesn't specify prerequisites, timing, or how it differs from other acquisition-related tools in the sibling list. This leaves the agent without clear usage context.

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