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 accesses information via an API but doesn't describe what 'detailed information' includes, whether there are rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or the format of returned data. For a read operation with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool 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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose. It avoids unnecessary words and directly states what the tool does. However, it could be slightly more structured by explicitly separating purpose from context (e.g., mentioning the API name separately), but it's still highly concise.

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 (a read operation with no annotations and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'detailed information' entails, how results are formatted, potential limitations (e.g., pagination, empty responses), or error handling. For a tool that accesses external API data, this lack of context makes it harder for an agent to use 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'cik' parameter documented as 'CIK number to search for'. The description adds no additional semantic context about the parameter, such as format examples (e.g., 10-digit string) or where to find CIK numbers. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't detract either.

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: 'Access detailed information on all crowdfunding campaigns launched by a specific company with the FMP Crowdfunding By CIK API.' It specifies the verb ('access'), resource ('crowdfunding campaigns'), and scope ('by a specific company'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'searchCrowdfundingCampaigns' or 'getLatestCrowdfundingCampaigns', which would be needed for a score of 5.

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 sibling tools like 'searchCrowdfundingCampaigns' (which might allow broader searches) or 'getLatestCrowdfundingCampaigns' (which might focus on recent campaigns). There's also no mention of prerequisites, such as needing a valid CIK number, which is implied but not stated.

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