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 retrieves data but doesn't specify whether it's read-only (implied), requires authentication, has rate limits, returns structured data, or handles errors. For a data retrieval tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its operational behavior.

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 appropriately concise with two sentences: one stating the purpose and source, and another listing key data fields. It's front-loaded with the core function. However, the second sentence could be more tightly integrated or omitted if output schema existed.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return format, data structure, or potential limitations (e.g., availability of notes for all symbols). For a tool retrieving detailed information, more context on output behavior is needed to be fully helpful.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'symbol' clearly documented as 'Stock symbol'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. This meets the baseline of 3 when schema coverage is high.

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 with a specific verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('detailed information about company-issued notes'), and identifies the data source ('FMP Company Notes API'). It distinguishes itself from many sibling tools by focusing on notes rather than financial statements, quotes, or other data types. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential note-related siblings (none are apparent in the 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. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context for when notes are needed, or compare it to other company data tools (like getCompanyProfile or getCompanySECProfile). The agent must infer usage from the purpose alone.

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