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 full burden. It mentions measuring growth rate over time but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, data freshness, error handling, or what specific growth metrics are returned. For a financial API tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 that directly state the purpose. There's no wasted text, though it could be slightly more front-loaded with key differentiators. Every sentence contributes to understanding the tool's function.

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 tool with 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what growth rate metrics are returned, time periods covered, data sources, or how results are structured. The agent would lack sufficient context to use this tool effectively without trial and error.

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 already documents all three parameters (symbol, limit, period) with their types, descriptions, and enum values. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 measures growth rate of a company's cash flow using a specific API (FMP Cashflow Statement Growth API). It specifies the resource (company's cash flow) and verb (measure growth rate), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like getCashFlowStatement or getCashFlowStatementGrowthBulk, which appear to be related.

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 doesn't mention sibling tools like getCashFlowStatement (which might provide raw data) or getCashFlowGrowthBulk (which might handle multiple companies), nor does it specify use cases or prerequisites beyond the basic purpose.

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