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 a list via an API, implying a read-only operation, but does not clarify pagination behavior, rate limits, authentication requirements, or data freshness. The mention of 'comprehensive list' and 'US exchanges' adds some context, but critical operational details are missing for a tool with potential large datasets.

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 concise and front-loaded, with the core purpose stated in the first sentence. The second sentence adds value by explaining benefits, but could be more tightly integrated. There is no wasted text, and the structure effectively communicates the tool's intent without unnecessary elaboration.

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 does not explain the return format (e.g., structure of delisted company data), error conditions, or performance characteristics. For a tool that likely returns paginated financial data, more contextual information is needed to guide effective usage by an AI agent.

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 both parameters ('page', 'limit') well-documented in the schema. The description does not add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, such as typical usage patterns or constraints. Since the schema handles the parameter documentation adequately, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 a comprehensive list of companies that have been delisted from US exchanges.' It specifies the verb ('access') and resource ('list of delisted companies'), and distinguishes from siblings by focusing on delisted companies rather than active trading data. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from potential sibling tools like 'getSymbolChanges' or 'getHistoricalSP500Changes' that might also involve company status changes.

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 mentions general benefits ('avoid trading in risky stocks and identify potential financial troubles') but does not specify use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions. With many sibling tools available (e.g., 'getActivelyTradingList', 'getSymbolChanges'), the lack of comparative context leaves the agent without clear selection criteria.

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