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. It mentions 'quickly retrieve' but does not disclose behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication needs, data freshness, error handling, or response format. The description lacks details on what 'all listed companies' entails or any constraints on the bulk request.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by additional context on output content. It is efficient with minimal waste, though the second sentence could be more tightly integrated with the first for better flow.

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 financial valuations and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the return structure, data format, or any limitations (e.g., symbol limits, timeouts). For a bulk financial tool with no structured support, more behavioral and output details are needed.

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 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameters need documentation. The description does not add parameter details, which is appropriate here. A baseline of 4 is given since there are no parameters to describe, and the description does not mislead about inputs.

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 discounted cash flow (DCF) valuations for multiple symbols in one request' and mentions 'implied price movement and percentage differences'. It specifies the verb ('retrieve'), resource ('DCF valuations'), and scope ('multiple symbols', 'bulk'), but does not explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'getDCFValuation' beyond implying bulk vs single operations.

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 like 'getDCFValuation' or 'calculateCustomDCF'. It mentions retrieving data 'for all listed companies' but offers no context on prerequisites, limitations, or specific scenarios where this bulk tool is preferred over individual lookups.

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