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 states the tool provides 'upcoming economic data releases' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it's read-only (implied by 'get'), rate limits, authentication needs, data freshness, pagination, or error handling. The description is promotional ('Stay informed', 'make informed investment decisions') rather than operational.

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 two sentences but includes promotional fluff ('Stay informed', 'prepare for market impacts and make informed investment decisions') that doesn't add operational value. It's front-loaded with the core purpose but could be more concise by removing marketing language. Every sentence doesn't fully earn its place.

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 potential complexity. It doesn't explain what the output contains (e.g., event types, countries, importance levels), how results are structured, or any limitations (e.g., historical data availability). For a calendar tool with rich data, more operational details are needed.

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%, with both parameters ('from' and 'to') documented as optional date ranges. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides—it doesn't explain date format constraints, default behavior if omitted, or how the range affects results. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the 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's purpose: 'Access a comprehensive calendar of upcoming economic data releases' (verb+resource). It distinguishes from siblings like getEarningsCalendar or getDividendsCalendar by specifying 'economic data releases' rather than earnings or dividends. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from getEconomicIndicators, which might overlap.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions 'prepare for market impacts and make informed investment decisions' as general benefits, but doesn't specify when to choose this over getEconomicIndicators, getEarningsCalendar, or other calendar tools. No prerequisites, exclusions, or comparative context are provided.

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