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 states the tool 'provides an analytical breakdown' and 'offers insight,' which suggests a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify if it's a query or report, whether it has rate limits, authentication needs, or what the output format looks like. The description lacks details on behavioral traits beyond the basic purpose.

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 that efficiently convey the tool's purpose and value without unnecessary details. It's front-loaded with the core function and follows with benefits, though it could be slightly more structured by explicitly stating it's a query tool.

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 has 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address how results are returned (e.g., pagination with page/limit), potential errors, or the analytical format, leaving gaps for an AI agent to correctly invoke and interpret the tool.

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, documenting all parameters (symbol, year, quarter, page, limit) with clear details. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints, so it meets the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 provides 'an analytical breakdown of institutional filings' with insight into 'stock movements, strategies, and portfolio changes by major institutional holders.' It specifies the resource (institutional filings) and analytical focus, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'getHolderIndustryBreakdown' or 'getHolderPerformanceSummary' that might cover similar institutional data.

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 mentions the tool helps 'understand investment behavior and track significant changes in stock ownership,' implying usage for analyzing institutional holdings. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'getFilingsBySymbol' or 'getLatestInstitutionalFilings,' nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions.

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