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 'download' and 'access,' implying a read operation, but doesn't mention any behavioral traits such as authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or what happens if data is unavailable. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 front-loaded, with two sentences that directly state the tool's function and value ('spreadsheet-friendly format'). There's no unnecessary fluff, and every sentence contributes to understanding the tool's purpose. However, it could be slightly more structured by explicitly listing key parameters or use cases.

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 (3 required parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and format but lacks details on behavioral aspects, error handling, or output specifics. With no output schema, the description doesn't explain return values, leaving gaps in completeness for effective tool invocation.

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 clear parameter definitions (symbol, year, period with enum). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format details or examples. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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: 'Download detailed 10-K reports in XLSX format' with 'annual financial data for companies in a spreadsheet-friendly format.' It specifies the verb (download), resource (10-K reports), and format (XLSX). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'getFinancialReportJSON' or 'getFinancialReportsDates,' which would be needed for a score of 5.

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 'effortlessly access and analyze annual financial data' but doesn't specify prerequisites, constraints, or compare it to similar tools like 'getFinancialReportJSON' for JSON format or other financial data tools in the sibling list. This lack of explicit when/when-not usage advice limits its utility for an AI agent.

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