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 a 'comprehensive database' and is 'essential' for certain tasks, but lacks critical details such as whether it's a read-only operation, any rate limits, authentication requirements, or the format of returned data. 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 two sentences long and avoids unnecessary fluff, but it includes promotional language ('essential for businesses, financial professionals, and individuals') that does not add functional value. The core purpose is stated upfront, but the second sentence could be more focused on tool-specific guidance rather than general benefits.

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 fails to address key behavioral aspects like data format, pagination, or error handling. For a tool that likely returns a list of CIK numbers, more context on the structure and scope of results is needed to adequately inform an AI agent.

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 100% description coverage, with one optional parameter 'limit' documented as 'Optional limit on number of results (default: 1000)'. The description does not add any meaning beyond this schema, as it does not mention parameters at all. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 comprehensive database of CIK (Central Index Key) numbers for SEC-registered entities with the FMP CIK List API.' It specifies the verb ('access'), resource ('CIK numbers'), and target ('SEC-registered entities'), but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'searchCIK' or 'searchCompaniesByCIK', which appear to serve related but distinct purposes.

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 general use cases ('regulatory compliance, financial transactions, and investment research'), but does not specify when to choose this tool over sibling tools such as 'searchCIK' or 'searchCompaniesByCIK', nor does it outline any prerequisites or exclusions for its use.

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