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 describes the tool as providing access to a schedule but does not mention any behavioral traits such as read-only nature, potential rate limits, authentication needs, or output format. For a tool with no annotations, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 well-structured in two sentences, front-loading the purpose and detailing the data included. There is no wasted language, and it efficiently communicates the tool's function 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 tool's moderate complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is partially complete. It explains what the tool does but lacks details on behavioral aspects, usage context, and output expectations. Without annotations or an output schema, the description should provide more context to be fully adequate.

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, clearly documenting the 'from' and 'to' parameters as start and end dates in YYYY-MM-DD format. The description does not add any additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as date range constraints or default behaviors. With high schema coverage, 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: to access a schedule of dividend-related dates for stocks. It specifies the resource (dividend events calendar) and the types of data included (record dates, payment dates, declaration dates, dividend yields). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like getDividends or getStockSplitCalendar, which might also involve dividend or calendar data, so it misses full sibling distinction.

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 accessing a comprehensive schedule but does not specify use cases, prerequisites, or compare to similar tools like getDividends or getEarningsCalendar. This lack of contextual direction leaves the agent without clear usage instructions.

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