Financial Modeling Prep MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only vaguely describes the tool's behavior ('analyze cash generated and used'). It doesn't disclose critical details like whether this is a read-only operation, rate limits, authentication needs, data freshness, or what format/scope the returned cash flow data includes. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the name.

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 concise with two sentences that directly address purpose and utility. It avoids unnecessary fluff and is front-loaded with the main function. However, the second sentence could be more focused on tool behavior rather than general analysis 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?

For a financial data retrieval tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks details about return format, data structure, time periods covered, error conditions, and how it differs from sibling cash flow tools. With no annotations and incomplete behavioral disclosure, users cannot fully understand how to use this tool effectively.

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%, so parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema already provides (symbol, limit, period). No additional syntax, format, or usage details are given for the parameters.

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 retrieves cash flow statement data for financial analysis ('Gain insights into a company's cash flow activities'), specifying the resource (cash flow statements) and purpose (evaluate financial health). It distinguishes from siblings like getBalanceSheetStatement by focusing on cash flow, but doesn't explicitly contrast with getCashFlowStatementAsReported or getCashFlowStatementTTM.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like getCashFlowStatementAsReported, getCashFlowStatementTTM, or getCashFlowStatementsBulk. The description mentions general analysis purposes but lacks explicit when/when-not instructions or prerequisites.

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