Financial Modeling Prep MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'search' and 'access detailed regulatory filings', implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify whether it's paginated (though the schema includes 'page' and 'limit'), rate-limited, requires authentication, or what the output format looks like (no output schema). For a tool with 5 parameters and no annotations, 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 appropriately sized with two sentences that efficiently convey the tool's purpose and utility. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Search for SEC filings') and avoids unnecessary details. However, the second sentence could be more direct, and there's minor redundancy in mentioning 'CIK' twice.

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 (5 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't address key contextual aspects like pagination behavior (implied by 'page' and 'limit' parameters), error handling, rate limits, or example use cases. For a search tool with multiple parameters and no structured output documentation, more guidance is needed to make it fully actionable.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all 5 parameters (cik, from, to, page, limit). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as format examples for dates or typical usage patterns. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting, but the description doesn't compensate with extra context.

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: 'Search for SEC filings using the FMP SEC Filings By CIK API' with the specific resource being 'detailed regulatory filings' and the key identifier 'Central Index Key (CIK) number'. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on CIK-based search, unlike other filing tools like 'getFilingsBySymbol' or 'getFilingsByFormType'. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with these siblings in the description text.

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 implies usage context by stating it enables tracking 'all filings related to a specific company or entity', suggesting it's for company-specific regulatory history. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'getFilingsBySymbol' or 'searchCIK', nor does it mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid CIK) or exclusions (e.g., date range limitations).

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