Financial Modeling Prep MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While it mentions retrieving data (implying read-only) and bulk operations, it fails to address critical aspects: rate limits, authentication requirements, response format, pagination behavior, error handling, or whether this is a synchronous or asynchronous operation. For a bulk API tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.

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 that convey the core functionality and scope. The first sentence states the purpose, the second provides examples of data types. There's minimal redundancy, though it could be slightly more front-loaded by moving the 'multiple companies' emphasis earlier.

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?

For a bulk data retrieval tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what format the bulk data returns in, how to interpret the 'part' parameter for pagination/partitioning, what limitations exist on request size, or what authentication/rate limiting applies. The description should provide more operational context given the complexity of bulk operations.

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 schema has 100% description coverage with one parameter clearly documented as 'Part number (e.g., 0, 1, 2)'. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides - it doesn't explain what 'part' means in context, how many parts exist, or how this relates to bulk retrieval. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'retrieve comprehensive company profile data in bulk' with specific examples of data types (company details, stock price, market cap, sector, industry). It distinguishes itself from single-company tools like 'getCompanyProfile' by emphasizing bulk retrieval, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other bulk tools like 'getBalanceSheetStatementsBulk' or 'getStockPeersBulk'.

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 mentions retrieving data 'for multiple companies in a single request' which implies bulk usage, but provides no guidance on when to use this versus single-company alternatives, what constitutes appropriate 'bulk' scenarios, or any prerequisites. It doesn't reference sibling tools or provide exclusion criteria.

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