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 'detailed information' and tracking 'offering activity,' but doesn't specify what data is returned (e.g., offering dates, amounts, types), whether it's historical or real-time, any rate limits, authentication requirements, or error conditions. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 with two sentences that directly address the tool's function and potential use. It avoids unnecessary fluff and is front-loaded with the core purpose. However, the second sentence ('Track offering activity...') could be integrated more tightly, and there's some marketing language ('FMP Company Equity Offerings by CIK API') that doesn't add operational value.

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 (a financial data query tool), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return format (e.g., JSON structure, fields like offering type or date), pagination, error handling, or data freshness. For a tool that likely returns structured financial data, this omission is significant and could hinder effective use by an AI agent.

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 (the 'cik' parameter is documented as 'CIK number to search for'), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds marginal value by reinforcing that it's 'by CIK' and for 'specific companies,' but doesn't provide additional syntax, format details (e.g., CIK length or padding), or examples beyond what the schema implies. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema coverage is high.

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 detailed information on equity offerings announced by specific companies' and 'Track offering activity and identify potential investment opportunities.' It specifies the resource (equity offerings) and the action (access/track/identify). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'searchEquityOfferings' or 'getLatestEquityOfferings,' which would be needed for a score of 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 minimal guidance on when to use this tool. It mentions 'by specific companies' and references the CIK parameter, but doesn't explain when to choose this over alternatives like 'searchEquityOfferings' (which might allow broader searches) or 'getLatestEquityOfferings' (which might provide recent data without CIK filtering). No explicit when-not-to-use or prerequisite information is given.

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