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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions retrieving 'a complete list' and 'how many are accessible', which implies a read-only operation returning metadata, but doesn't specify output format, pagination, rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient to inform the agent adequately about its behavior.

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 convey the tool's purpose and utility without redundancy. It's front-loaded with the core function ('Access a complete list...') and follows with the value ('for detailed financial analysis'). There's no wasted text, though it could be slightly more structured for optimal clarity.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the return data looks like (e.g., list format, fields like symbol count), any limitations (e.g., data freshness, API constraints), or how it integrates with sibling tools. For a tool with no structured metadata, the description should provide more contextual detail to guide the agent 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?

The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, focusing instead on the tool's purpose. A baseline of 4 is applied since the schema fully handles parameters, and the description doesn't add unnecessary param info.

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: 'Access a complete list of stock symbols with available earnings call transcripts' and 'Retrieve information on which companies have earnings transcripts and how many are accessible'. It specifies the verb ('access', 'retrieve'), resource ('stock symbols', 'earnings call transcripts'), and scope ('complete list', 'available'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'getEarningsTranscriptList' or 'getEarningsTranscriptDates', which is why it doesn't score a 5.

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 'detailed financial analysis' as a general context, but doesn't specify prerequisites, exclusions, or compare it to similar tools in the sibling list (e.g., 'getEarningsTranscriptList' for actual transcripts or 'getEarningsTranscriptDates' for dates). This leaves the agent without clear usage direction.

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