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 key performance metrics' but doesn't describe output format, pagination, rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling. For a read operation with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency about how the tool behaves.

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. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second elaborates on the metrics provided. There is no wasted text, making it efficient, though it could be slightly more front-loaded with key details.

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 complexity of financial data retrieval, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on output structure, error cases, and usage context, which are crucial for an agent to invoke the tool effectively. The description does not compensate for the absence of structured behavioral information.

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 the single parameter 'symbol' documented as 'Stock symbol.' The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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: 'Gain access to trailing twelve-month (TTM) financial ratios' and specifies it provides 'key performance metrics over the past year, including profitability, liquidity, and efficiency ratios.' This is specific about the resource (TTM financial ratios) and timeframe (past year), though it doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like 'getRatios' or 'getRatiosTTMBulk'.

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 provides TTM ratios but doesn't specify use cases, prerequisites, or contrast with sibling tools such as 'getRatios' (which might provide different timeframes) or 'getRatiosTTMBulk' (which likely handles multiple symbols). This leaves the agent without clear selection criteria.

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