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 describes the tool as accessing articles with updates, implying a read-only operation, but does not cover critical aspects like rate limits, authentication requirements, pagination behavior, or error handling. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves in practice.

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, front-loading the main purpose and following with content details. It avoids unnecessary words, but could be slightly more efficient by integrating the API mention more seamlessly. Overall, it earns its place with clear information delivery.

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 complexity (fetching articles with pagination), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the return format, error cases, or behavioral constraints like rate limits. For a tool with no structured support, the description should provide more context to guide effective use, but it falls short.

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 clear documentation for 'page' and 'limit' parameters including defaults. The description does not add any semantic details beyond the schema, such as explaining the range of valid values or the impact of these parameters on results. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema adequately handles parameter semantics without extra description.

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 the latest articles from Financial Modeling Prep with the FMP Articles API. Get comprehensive updates including headlines, snippets, and publication URLs.' It specifies the verb ('access'), resource ('latest articles'), and content details, making the function unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'getCryptoNews' or 'getGeneralNews', which also fetch news/articles, leaving some ambiguity about when to choose this specific tool.

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 accessing articles from Financial Modeling Prep but does not specify contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions. With many sibling tools for news (e.g., 'getCryptoNews', 'getGeneralNews'), the lack of comparative guidance leaves the agent without clear direction on tool selection.

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