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 'Search' and 'Retrieve', which imply a read-only operation, but does not specify whether this is a safe read (e.g., no side effects), any rate limits, authentication requirements, or pagination behavior (though 'page' and 'limit' parameters hint at pagination). The description lacks critical behavioral details for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 scope. It is front-loaded with the main action ('Search for specific SEC filings by form type') and avoids unnecessary details. Every sentence contributes to understanding, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating usage hints).

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 output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It does not explain the return values (e.g., what data is retrieved), error conditions, or behavioral traits like pagination or rate limits. For a search tool with multiple parameters and no structured output information, the description should provide more context to guide effective use.

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 already documents all parameters (formType, from, to, page, limit) with descriptions. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning 'filtered by the exact type of document' and examples like '10-K, 10-Q, 8-K', which align with the 'formType' parameter. However, it does not provide additional semantics for other parameters, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 specific SEC filings by form type' and 'Retrieve filings such as 10-K, 10-Q, 8-K, and others'. It specifies the verb ('search', 'retrieve'), resource ('SEC filings'), and scope ('by form type'). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'getFilingsByCIK' or 'getFilingsBySymbol', which also retrieve SEC filings but use different filters.

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 'filtered by the exact type of document you're looking for', suggesting this tool is for when the user knows the specific form type. However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'getFilingsByCIK' for company-specific filings) or any exclusions. The usage is implied but not clearly articulated.

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