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' reports, implying a read-only operation, but does not clarify authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or response format. The description lacks critical behavioral details for a tool with no structured annotations.

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, front-loading the core purpose and adding context about the API's utility. There is minimal redundancy, though the second sentence could be more directly tied to tool usage 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 absence of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on response format, error conditions, authentication, and rate limits, which are crucial for a data retrieval tool. The description does not adequately compensate for the missing structured information.

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 clear parameter descriptions (symbol, from, to). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, such as valid symbol formats or date constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description does not compensate but also does not 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 'accesses comprehensive Commitment of Traders (COT) reports' with the FMP COT Report API, specifying the resource (COT reports) and purpose (assess market sentiment, track positions). It distinguishes from siblings like getCOTAnalysis or getCOTList by focusing on raw report data rather than analysis or listings, though the differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions general benefits (assess market sentiment, track positions) but does not specify scenarios, prerequisites, or compare it to sibling tools like getCOTAnalysis or getCOTList, leaving the agent without clear usage context.

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