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 mentions the tool uses the 'FMP ESG Benchmark Comparison API' and involves comparison, but it does not disclose critical behavioral traits such as data sources, update frequency, rate limits, authentication requirements, or error handling. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it operates.

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, consisting of two sentences that directly state the tool's purpose and utility. There is no wasted language, and it efficiently communicates the core function. However, it could be slightly improved by structuring to highlight key details like parameter usage or alternatives, but overall it is well-sized and clear.

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 complexity (evaluating and comparing ESG performance), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the output includes (e.g., benchmark scores, industry rankings), how comparisons are made, or any limitations. For a tool with no structured support, the description should provide more context to be fully helpful.

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 for its single optional parameter 'year,' so the schema fully documents the parameter. The description does not add any additional semantic context about parameters, such as format examples (e.g., 'YYYY') or default behavior if omitted. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description does not compensate but also does not detract.

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: 'Evaluate the ESG performance of companies and funds' and 'Compare ESG leaders and laggards within industries.' It specifies the action (evaluate, compare) and resource (ESG performance, companies/funds, industries). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'getESGRatings' or 'getESGDisclosures,' which may have overlapping functions, 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 minimal usage guidance by stating the tool helps 'make informed and responsible investment decisions,' which implies a context of investment analysis. However, it does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'getESGRatings' for individual ratings or 'getESGDisclosures' for raw data), nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. This lack of explicit alternatives or conditions limits its guidance.

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