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. It mentions accessing 'comprehensive annual reports' and obtaining 'detailed information', but does not disclose behavioral traits such as data format (implied JSON from tool name), rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling. The description is vague about what 'access' entails operationally.

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 with two sentences that efficiently state the tool's purpose and what it provides. It is front-loaded with the main action ('Access comprehensive annual reports'), though it could be slightly more structured by explicitly mentioning the output format (JSON).

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 no annotations, no output schema, and 3 required parameters, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits, usage context, and output specifics (e.g., JSON structure, error cases). For a tool fetching financial reports, more guidance on data scope and limitations is needed.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents the parameters (symbol, year, period). The description does not add any meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining parameter interactions or providing examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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: 'Access comprehensive annual reports... Obtain detailed information about a company’s financial performance, business operations, and risk factors as reported to the SEC.' It specifies the verb ('access', 'obtain'), resource ('annual reports', 'Form 10-K'), and scope ('SEC reports'), but does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like 'getFinancialReportXLSX' or 'getFinancialReportsDates'.

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 ('FMP Annual Reports on Form 10-K API') but does not specify use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions compared to sibling tools such as 'getFinancialReportXLSX' or other financial data tools in the list.

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