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 'accesses' data, implying a read-only operation, but does not clarify authentication needs, rate limits, data freshness, or response format. For a financial data tool with no annotations, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 concise and front-loaded, with two sentences that directly state the tool's function and data scope. There is no wasted language, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating API reference from data details).

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 financial data tools, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on authentication, error handling, data format, and how results are structured (e.g., time series, nested objects). The description does not compensate for these gaps, making it inadequate for reliable 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 the three parameters (symbol, limit, period). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying financial data retrieval. It does not explain parameter interactions or provide examples, but the schema's completeness justifies the baseline score.

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 balance sheets as reported by the company' with the specific resource being 'detailed financial data on assets, liabilities, and equity directly from official filings.' It uses the verb 'access' and specifies the data source ('As Reported Balance Statements API'), but does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like 'getBalanceSheetStatement' or 'getBalanceSheetStatementGrowth'.

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 the API name but does not specify use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions. With many sibling tools related to balance sheets (e.g., 'getBalanceSheetStatement', 'getBalanceSheetStatementGrowth'), the lack of comparative context leaves the agent without clear selection criteria.

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