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 describes the tool as a discovery mechanism for ESG data but does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether it's a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication needs, or what the output format might be (e.g., list of companies with scores). This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves beyond its basic purpose.

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 functionality. There is no wasted text, and it efficiently communicates the core idea. However, it could be slightly improved by integrating more specific usage details without losing conciseness.

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 ESG data and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It explains what the tool does but fails to provide necessary context such as the format of results, any limitations (e.g., data freshness, coverage), or how it integrates with sibling tools. This makes it inadequate for an agent to fully understand and use the tool 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 one parameter 'symbol' clearly documented as 'Stock symbol'. The description does not add any meaning beyond this, as it does not mention parameters at all. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema adequately defines the parameter without needing extra explanation in the description.

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: 'Discover companies and funds based on Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) scores, performance, controversies, and business involvement criteria.' It specifies the verb ('discover') and resource ('companies and funds') with ESG criteria. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'getESGRatings' or 'getESGBenchmarks', which likely focus on different aspects of ESG data.

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 guidance on when to use this tool. It mentions aligning investments with values and using the FMP ESG Investment Search API, but does not specify when to choose this over alternatives (e.g., 'getESGRatings' for ratings only) or any prerequisites. The context is implied but lacks explicit usage scenarios or exclusions.

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