Financial Modeling Prep MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the API source (FMP Financial Estimates API) and that data is 'projected' and 'forecasted', which implies forward-looking estimates rather than historical facts. However, it doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication requirements, data freshness, error handling, or pagination behavior (though pagination parameters exist in the schema). The description adds some context but leaves significant gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 that efficiently state the tool's purpose and value. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, and the second sentence adds useful context about the types of estimates. There's minimal waste, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points for key metrics).

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is moderately complete for a read-only data retrieval tool. It covers the what and why but lacks details on behavioral aspects like rate limits or error handling. The high schema coverage helps, but for a tool with four parameters and no output schema, more context on return format or data structure would improve completeness.

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 already documents all four parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific semantics beyond what's in the schema—it doesn't explain symbol format constraints, period implications, or pagination defaults. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't need to heavily.

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 verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('analyst financial estimates for stock symbols'), specifying it uses the FMP Financial Estimates API and mentions projected figures like revenue and EPS. It distinguishes from many siblings by focusing on analyst estimates rather than historical data, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from tools like getPriceTargetConsensus or getRatingsSnapshot that might overlap with analyst perspectives.

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 'to inform your investment decisions' as a general goal, but doesn't specify scenarios where analyst estimates are preferred over other financial data tools, nor does it reference any sibling tools as alternatives. Usage context is implied but not explicit.

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