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 ESG ratings via an API but doesn't describe behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication requirements, error handling, response format, or whether it's read-only (implied by 'access' but not explicit). For a tool with no annotation coverage, 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 front-loaded, consisting of two sentences that directly state the tool's purpose and high-level use case. There's no wasted verbiage, and it efficiently communicates the core functionality. However, it could be slightly more structured by explicitly separating purpose from usage context, but it remains highly efficient.

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 (accessing ESG ratings via an API), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like rate limits, authentication, error handling, or response structure. While it states the purpose clearly, it fails to provide sufficient context for safe and effective use by an AI agent, especially for a data-fetching tool with potential API constraints.

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' documented as 'Stock symbol.' The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples (e.g., ticker case sensitivity) or constraints (e.g., supported exchanges). With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't 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: 'Access comprehensive ESG ratings for companies and funds' with the specific resource (ESG ratings) and verb (access). It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on ESG data, unlike other tools that handle financial metrics, news, or screening. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'getESGBenchmarks' or 'getESGDisclosures' (if those are siblings), which slightly reduces specificity.

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 'Make informed investment decisions based on ESG performance data,' which is a general use case but doesn't specify prerequisites, constraints, or when to choose this over other ESG-related tools (e.g., 'getESGBenchmarks'). There's no explicit when/when-not or alternative tool references, leaving usage context implied at best.

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