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 accessing data via an API ('FMP Transcripts Dates By Symbol API') and implies read-only behavior, but lacks details on rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or the format of returned data. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its operational traits.

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 well-structured in two sentences: the first states the core purpose, and the second elaborates on the scope. It avoids unnecessary details and is front-loaded with key information, though it could be slightly more efficient by integrating the API reference 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 the tool's low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the purpose and basic context but lacks details on behavioral aspects like data format, limitations, or error handling. Without annotations or an output schema, the description should do more to compensate, but it meets a bare minimum for a simple read operation.

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 the single parameter 'symbol' documented as 'Stock symbol.' The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. Since schema coverage is high, 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 earnings call transcript dates for specific companies' with the FMP Transcripts Dates By Symbol API, providing a 'comprehensive overview of earnings call schedules based on fiscal year and quarter.' It specifies the verb ('access'), resource ('earnings call transcript dates'), and scope ('specific companies'), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'getEarningsTranscript' or 'getEarningsTranscriptList' beyond mentioning 'dates' and 'schedules.'

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 implies usage context by mentioning 'earnings call schedules based on fiscal year and quarter,' suggesting it's for retrieving scheduled dates rather than actual transcripts. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'getEarningsCalendar' or 'getEarningsTranscript,' nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions, leaving usage somewhat ambiguous.

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