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 states the tool retrieves data (implying read-only) and enables analysis, but doesn't cover critical aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination, error handling, or the format/scope of returned data (e.g., which companies, time ranges, or metrics). For a bulk retrieval tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('retrieve growth data across multiple companies’ balance sheets') and adds context ('enabling detailed analysis of how financial positions have changed over time'). It avoids redundancy and wastes no words, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating usage notes).

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 (bulk retrieval across companies), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what data is returned (e.g., growth metrics, company identifiers), how to specify companies, or behavioral constraints (e.g., limits, errors). For a tool with two required parameters and no structured output documentation, this leaves significant gaps for an agent to use it 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters ('year' and 'period') well-documented in the schema (e.g., 'Year (e.g., 2023)' and 'Period (Q1, Q2, Q3, Q4, FY)'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying time-based filtering ('over time'), which is already covered by the schema. This meets the baseline score of 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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: 'retrieve growth data across multiple companies’ balance sheets' and 'analysis of how financial positions have changed over time.' It specifies the verb ('retrieve'), resource ('growth data across multiple companies’ balance sheets'), and scope ('over time'), distinguishing it from single-company balance sheet tools. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from close siblings like 'getBalanceSheetStatementGrowth' or 'getBalanceSheetStatementGrowthBulk' (if they exist), which slightly limits its clarity.

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 'multiple companies' but doesn't specify prerequisites (e.g., company symbols or identifiers as inputs), compare it to single-company tools (e.g., 'getBalanceSheetStatementGrowth'), or indicate when bulk retrieval is preferred over individual calls. This lack of context leaves usage ambiguous.

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