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 vaguely mentions 'gain insights' and 'analyze cash generated and used' but fails to disclose critical behavioral traits such as data freshness (TTM period), rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand operational constraints.

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 two sentences and avoids redundancy, but it's front-loaded with marketing language ('Gain insights') rather than actionable information. It could be more structured to immediately state the tool's core function without the promotional tone.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on return values (e.g., structure of cash flow data), error cases, or TTM-specific context. For a financial data tool with two parameters, this leaves the agent under-informed about what to expect.

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 both parameters ('symbol' and 'limit'). The description adds no additional meaning about parameters, such as format examples for 'symbol' or implications of the 'limit' default. Baseline 3 is appropriate as 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 states the tool provides cash flow insights for evaluating financial health, which gives a general purpose. However, it lacks specificity about what 'TTM' (Trailing Twelve Months) means and doesn't clearly differentiate from sibling tools like 'getCashFlowStatement' or 'getCashFlowStatementGrowth'.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description mentions analyzing cash flow activities but doesn't specify scenarios, prerequisites, or comparisons to other cash flow-related tools in the sibling list.

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