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 retrieving bulk data and analyzing trends, but lacks critical behavioral details: it doesn't specify if this is a read-only operation (implied by 'retrieve' but not explicit), what the output format or structure is (no output schema), whether there are rate limits, authentication requirements, or how 'multiple companies' are specified (not in parameters). For a bulk data tool with no annotations, this is insufficient.

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 well-structured in two sentences: the first states the core functionality, and the second provides usage context. There's no wasted text, and it's front-loaded with the main purpose. However, it could be slightly more direct by explicitly naming the tool's unique value among siblings.

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 a bulk financial data tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on output format, error handling, rate limits, and how 'multiple companies' are handled (e.g., via input parameters not listed). While it covers the basic purpose, it doesn't provide enough context for reliable agent use without additional assumptions.

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 parameters 'year' and 'period' clearly documented. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying time-based tracking ('over time'), which is already covered by the schema. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline score is 3, 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: 'retrieve bulk growth data for cash flow statements' and 'track changes in cash flows over time.' It specifies the resource (cash flow statements) and verb (retrieve bulk growth data), but doesn't explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like 'getCashFlowStatementGrowth' or 'getCashFlowStatementsBulk' beyond mentioning 'bulk' and 'multiple companies simultaneously.'

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 implies usage context: 'ideal for analyzing the cash flow growth trends of multiple companies simultaneously,' suggesting it's for batch analysis rather than single-company queries. However, it doesn't provide explicit when-to-use vs. when-not-to-use guidance or name specific alternatives among the many sibling tools, such as 'getCashFlowStatementGrowth' for single companies or 'getCashFlowStatementsBulk' for raw statements.

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