Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Financial Modeling Prep MCP Server

Financial Modeling Prep MCP Server

by imbenrabi
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

getCashFlowStatementGrowth

Read-onlyIdempotent

Measure how quickly a company’s cash flow is increasing or decreasing over time by retrieving cash flow statement growth rates for a stock symbol, with optional period and result limit.

Instructions

Measure the growth rate of a company’s cash flow with the FMP Cashflow Statement Growth API. Determine how quickly a company’s cash flow is increasing or decreasing over time.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoLimit on number of results (default: 100, max: 1000)
periodNoPeriod (Q1, Q2, Q3, Q4, or FY)
symbolYesStock symbol

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv2.9.0
    • changedInput schema / $schema
      Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"
    • removedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Removed value: -false
  2. First observed

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and open-world behavior, so the description only needs to add operational context. It clarifies that the tool measures growth over time, but it does not disclose return granularity, units, or how period/limit affect the result.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two sentences and front-loads the core purpose. The second sentence is somewhat redundant but still supports the use case without excess wording.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple three-parameter read-only financial data tool with full schema coverage and annotations, the description is sufficiently complete. It could say more about the returned growth series, but it is adequate for correct invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so symbol, period, and limit are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond that baseline.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource: measuring the growth rate of a company's cash flow statement. It clearly distinguishes growth from the raw cash flow statement by name, but it does not explicitly name sibling tools or alternatives.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies trend analysis by saying it determines how quickly cash flow is increasing or decreasing, but it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no alternatives such as getCashFlowStatement or getFinancialStatementGrowth.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools