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 mentions the data source ('FMP Company Executives API') and the types of data returned, but fails to describe critical behaviors: whether this is a read-only operation, rate limits, authentication requirements, error handling, or the structure of the output. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.

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: the first states the purpose and data source, the second lists key data points. It avoids redundancy and is front-loaded with the main action. However, it could be slightly more concise by integrating the data points into the first sentence without losing clarity.

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 complexity of retrieving executive data with two parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., read-only status, error conditions), output format, and usage context relative to siblings. While it covers the purpose and data types, it doesn't provide enough information for an agent to fully understand how to invoke and interpret 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 the schema already documents both parameters ('symbol' and 'active') clearly. The description adds no additional meaning about these parameters—it doesn't explain what 'symbol' refers to (e.g., stock ticker), provide examples, or clarify the 'active' filter's impact. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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: 'Retrieve detailed information on company executives' with specific data points (name, title, compensation, demographic details). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'getExecutiveCompensation' by focusing on broader executive profiles rather than just compensation. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with other executive-related tools in the sibling list.

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. With many sibling tools available (e.g., 'getExecutiveCompensation', 'getCompanyProfile'), there is no indication of when this specific executive data retrieval is preferred, nor any mention of prerequisites or constraints beyond what the parameters imply.

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