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 'access' and 'retrieve,' implying a read-only operation, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication needs, pagination, or error handling. The description is minimal and lacks essential context for safe and effective use.

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 clear sentences that directly state the tool's function. There is no wasted language, and it efficiently conveys the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration.

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 financial data tools and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain what the return format looks like (e.g., list structure, fields included), potential limitations, or how to interpret the 'total number of transcripts.' For a tool in a domain with many siblings, more context is needed for effective use.

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 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description does not add parameter details, which is appropriate. A baseline of 4 is given as it compensates adequately for the lack of parameters by not introducing confusion or redundancy.

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 available earnings transcripts for companies' and 'Retrieve a list of companies with earnings transcripts, along with the total number of transcripts available for each company.' It specifies the verb ('access', 'retrieve'), resource ('earnings transcripts', 'list of companies'), and scope ('with the FMP Earnings Transcript List API'). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'getEarningsTranscript' or 'getEarningsTranscriptDates', which is why it's not a 5.

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 the API context but does not specify use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions. For example, it does not clarify if this is for bulk listing versus detailed transcript retrieval, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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