Retrieve environmental, social, and governance ratings for a company or fund by stock symbol to evaluate ESG performance and support informed investment decisions.
Access comprehensive ESG ratings for companies and funds with the FMP ESG Ratings API. Make informed investment decisions based on environmental, social, and governance (ESG) performance data.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| symbol | Yes | Stock symbol |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.9.0Input schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"Input schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -falseDoes the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. Beyond that the description discloses nothing about behavior — not whether ratings are current vs. historical, what data points come back (E/S/G pillar scores, totals), or whether coverage is limited to a subset of symbols.
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?
Two sentences, but the second is generic marketing ('Make informed investment decisions based on ... ESG performance data') that carries no operative information. The functional content is front-loaded, which is good, but roughly half the text is filler.
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?
For a one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but leaves the agent guessing at what ratings are returned (pillar-level scores, percentile, etc.) and at the relationship to the other ESG tools in the sibling list. An output schema is absent, so some return-shape guidance would have been valuable.
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 coverage is 100% for the single 'symbol' parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema — it does not clarify whether the symbol may be a fund ticker despite the 'companies and funds' framing, nor whether a single symbol only is accepted.
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 states a specific verb and resource ('Access comprehensive ESG ratings for companies and funds'), so an agent knows it retrieves ESG scores. However, it does not differentiate itself from sibling tools like getESGDisclosures or getESGBenchmarks, and 'companies and funds' is slightly at odds with a single 'Stock symbol' parameter.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no routing to alternatives such as getESGDisclosures (filings-based ESG) or getESGBenchmarks. The only guidance is a vague benefit statement about making 'informed investment decisions'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.