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 retrieving 'detailed company profile data' and references an external API, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, error conditions, response format, or whether it's read-only (implied but not stated). The description adds some context but leaves critical operational details unspecified.

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. The first sentence clearly states the purpose, and the second adds useful context about data scope. There's no redundant information, though it could be slightly more structured for readability.

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 simple input schema (one parameter) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and data scope but lacks details on usage context, behavioral constraints, and output format, which are important for a data retrieval tool with many sibling alternatives.

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% with one parameter ('cik') documented as 'CIK number'. The description adds marginal value by explaining CIK stands for 'Central Index Key' and that it's a 'unique CIK identifier', but doesn't provide format examples, validation rules, or sourcing guidance beyond what the schema implies.

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 company profile data by CIK' with specific examples of data included (stock price, market capitalization, industry). It distinguishes from general 'getCompanyProfile' by specifying CIK-based retrieval, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'searchCompaniesByCIK' or 'getCompanyProfilesBulk' among siblings.

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 minimal usage guidance, only stating it retrieves data by CIK. It doesn't explain when to use this versus alternatives like 'getCompanyProfile' (by symbol), 'searchCompaniesByCIK', or 'getCompanyProfilesBulk', nor does it mention prerequisites or constraints.

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