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 is for viewing and analyzing cash flow statements, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify authentication needs, rate limits, data freshness, or error handling. For a financial data tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps unaddressed.

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 front-loaded, with two sentences that directly state the tool's purpose and analysis scope. There's no wasted text, and it efficiently communicates the core functionality. A slight deduction for not structuring usage guidance, but overall well-sized.

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's moderate complexity (financial data retrieval with 3 parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers what the tool does but lacks details on behavioral traits, output format, and usage context. This is the bare minimum for such a tool, leaving room for improvement in completeness.

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 the schema fully documents the three parameters (symbol, limit, period). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying analysis of cash flows, which doesn't enhance the schema's details. This meets the baseline score of 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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: 'View cash flow statements as reported by the company' and 'Analyze a company's cash flows related to operations, investments, and financing directly from official reports.' It specifies the verb ('View', 'Analyze'), resource ('cash flow statements'), and source ('official reports'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'getCashFlowStatement' or 'getCashFlowStatementGrowth', which reduces the score from a 5.

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 analyzing cash flows from official reports, but doesn't specify scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions. With many sibling tools available (e.g., 'getCashFlowStatement', 'getCashFlowStatementGrowth'), this lack of comparative context leaves the agent without clear usage direction.

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