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. While it mentions analyzing growth 'over time', it doesn't specify what time periods are available, whether data is historical or projected, what format the output takes, or any limitations (e.g., data availability for certain symbols). For a financial analysis tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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 functionality, and the second adds context about what's tracked and why. There's no wasted language, and key information is front-loaded. However, it could be slightly more concise by combining ideas, but it's already quite tight.

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 growth analysis, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the output looks like (e.g., growth percentages, time-series data), how results are structured, or any behavioral constraints. For a tool that likely returns nuanced financial data, this lack of context makes it difficult for an agent to use effectively without trial and error.

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 fully documents all three parameters (symbol, limit, period). The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema—it doesn't explain how these parameters affect the growth analysis or provide usage examples. With complete schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description adds no extra parameter semantics.

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: 'Analyze the growth of key balance sheet items over time' and specifies the resources involved ('assets, liabilities, and equity'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'getBalanceSheetStatement' (which likely provides static data) by focusing on growth analysis. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'getBalanceSheetGrowthBulk' or 'getFinancialStatementGrowth', which are closely related siblings.

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 changes 'to understand the financial evolution of a company', but doesn't specify use cases, prerequisites, or compare it to siblings like 'getBalanceSheetGrowthBulk' (for bulk operations) or 'getFinancialStatementGrowth' (which might cover multiple statement types). Without this context, an agent might struggle to choose between similar tools.

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