Fetch financial articles from Financial Modeling Prep, including headlines, snippets, and publication URLs, to support market insight and news analysis.
Access the latest articles from Financial Modeling Prep with the FMP Articles API. Get comprehensive updates including headlines, snippets, and publication URLs.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | Page number (default: 0) | |
| limit | No | Limit on number of results (default: 20) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.9.0Input schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"Input schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -falseDoes the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that results carry headlines, snippets and URLs, which is useful since there is no output schema, but it says nothing about ordering/recency guarantees, result volume, or how paging interacts with the live feed.
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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the resource and followed by what a caller gets back. Minor filler remains in 'with the FMP Articles API' and the vague intensifier 'comprehensive updates', neither of which carries information an agent can act on.
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?
With no output schema, the description must carry the return-value burden; it does so partially by naming three fields but omits ordering, volume per page and total-count behavior. For a two-parameter, paginated feed with full annotation coverage this is adequate but leaves real gaps in what a caller should expect back.
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%: both 'page' (default 0) and 'limit' (default 20) are documented in the schema with defaults. The description adds no extra meaning about paging depth caps, maximum limit, or whether page is zero- or one-based, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 names a resource (articles) and a source (Financial Modeling Prep), and lists the return fields (headlines, snippets, publication URLs). But the verb is the vague 'Access', and the phrase 'with the FMP Articles API' merely restates the tool name. It also does nothing to distinguish this general-articles feed from the many news siblings (getGeneralNews, getStockNews, getPressReleases).
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?
There is no statement of when to use this tool, when not to, or which alternative to pick when the agent wants symbol-specific or category-specific news. The agent must infer from the tool name alone that this is a broad, unfiltered article feed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.