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. It mentions the tool accesses a list via an API, implying a read-only operation, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication needs, pagination, or error handling. The description adds minimal context beyond the basic action.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, with the first sentence stating the core purpose. The second sentence adds useful context about market segments and exploration. Both sentences earn their place by clarifying scope and utility without redundancy.

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 has 0 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is adequate but has gaps. It explains what the tool does (access a list) but lacks details on behavioral aspects like response format, limitations, or error cases. For a simple list tool, it meets minimum viability but could be more complete.

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 tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%. The description does not need to add parameter semantics, as there are none to document. It appropriately focuses on the tool's purpose without unnecessary parameter details, meeting the baseline for a parameterless tool.

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 list of available Commitment of Traders (COT) reports by commodity or futures contract' using a specific API. It specifies the resource (COT reports) and scope (by commodity/futures contract), but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'getCOTAnalysis' or 'getCOTReports', which likely serve different purposes related to COT data.

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 exploring COT reports for various commodities, but does not specify prerequisites, exclusions, or compare it to siblings like 'getCOTReports' (which might retrieve actual report data). Usage is implied only by the general context of accessing lists.

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