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 full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'search and retrieve' but doesn't cover critical aspects like pagination behavior (implied by 'page' parameter), rate limits, authentication requirements, error handling, or response format. The description adds minimal value beyond the basic operation.

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 efficiently structured in two sentences that directly state the tool's function and value. The first sentence covers the core operation, while the second provides useful context about the types of filings available. No wasted words or redundant information.

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?

For a tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain the pagination system (page/limit parameters), doesn't describe the return format or structure, and provides no information about error conditions or limitations. The agent would need to guess about important behavioral aspects.

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, clearly documenting all 5 parameters. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, but doesn't need to given the comprehensive schema coverage. It mentions 'SEC filings' which aligns with the symbol parameter's purpose.

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 as 'Search and retrieve SEC filings by company symbol' with specific examples of filing types (8-K, 10-K, 10-Q). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on SEC filings retrieval by symbol, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with similar tools like 'getFilingsByCIK' or 'getFilingsByFormType'.

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 the API source but doesn't specify use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions compared to sibling tools like 'getFilingsByCIK' or 'getLatestFinancialFilings', leaving the agent with no contextual decision-making help.

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