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 accessing and analyzing data, it doesn't describe what the tool returns (e.g., format, structure, time periods), whether it requires authentication, rate limits, or any constraints like data availability for specific symbols. The description is vague about behavioral traits beyond the basic purpose.

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 efficiently state the tool's purpose and high-level use case. There's no wasted text, and it avoids redundancy. However, it could be slightly more structured by explicitly defining 'TTM' or including key behavioral details, but it's appropriately sized for its current content.

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 return values (e.g., what fields are included in the balance sheet), behavioral constraints (e.g., data latency, availability), and differentiation from siblings. For a tool with two parameters and significant context from sibling tools, this description should provide more completeness to guide effective 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%, with both parameters (symbol and limit) well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides—it doesn't explain what 'symbol' entails (e.g., ticker format) or how 'limit' applies to balance sheet data. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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 detailed balance sheet statements for publicly traded companies' and 'Analyze assets, liabilities, and shareholder equity.' It specifies the resource (balance sheet statements) and the target (publicly traded companies), distinguishing it from other financial statement tools like getIncomeStatement or getCashFlowStatement. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its closest sibling getBalanceSheetStatement, which appears to be a similar tool without the TTM suffix.

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 doesn't mention what 'TTM' stands for (Trailing Twelve Months) or how this differs from regular balance sheet statements, nor does it reference any sibling tools like getBalanceSheetStatement or getBalanceSheetStatementAsReported. The context is implied (financial analysis) but lacks explicit usage instructions or exclusions.

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