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 mentions retrieving 'in-depth earnings information' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, pagination, or what happens with invalid symbols. For a read-only tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its operation.

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 appropriately sized with two sentences that efficiently convey purpose and value. It avoids unnecessary fluff and front-loads the core functionality. However, the second sentence could be slightly more direct by integrating the examples more seamlessly.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool with two parameters. It lacks details on return format (e.g., structure of earnings data), error handling, or performance constraints. For a financial data retrieval tool, this leaves the agent under-informed about what to expect.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents both parameters (symbol as stock symbol, limit with default and max). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying the symbol is for earnings data, which is already clear from the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 retrieves earnings information for a specific stock symbol using the FMP Earnings Report API, with specific examples of data included (earnings report dates, EPS estimates, revenue projections). It distinguishes itself from siblings like getEarningsCalendar or getEarningsTranscript by focusing on comprehensive earnings reports rather than calendars or transcripts.

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 like getEarningsCalendar for upcoming dates or getEarningsTranscript for detailed discussion. It mentions staying on top of company performance as a general goal but offers no explicit when/when-not criteria or named alternatives.

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