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 accessing dates via an API but doesn't specify whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, rate limits, or what the output format looks like (e.g., JSON, dates in a specific format). The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the basic purpose, leaving gaps in understanding how the tool behaves in practice.

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 two sentences long and front-loaded with the core purpose, making it efficient. However, the second sentence about tracking metrics is somewhat redundant and could be considered unnecessary, as it doesn't directly relate to the tool's function of retrieving dates. Overall, it's concise but includes a minor element that doesn't fully earn its place.

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 a simple input schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain key aspects like the return format (e.g., what dates are returned, in what structure), potential errors, or how it integrates with sibling tools. For a tool that likely returns structured date data, more context is needed to be fully usable by an AI agent.

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' clearly documented as 'Stock symbol'. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond this, such as examples of valid symbols or constraints. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, 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 states the tool 'Access the latest financial reports dates for publicly traded companies' which provides a clear verb ('Access') and resource ('financial reports dates'), but it's vague about what 'dates' specifically means (e.g., release dates, filing dates, or period dates). It doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'getEarningsCalendar' or 'getEarningsTranscriptDates', which could have overlapping purposes. The mention of tracking metrics like revenue and earnings is somewhat misleading as the tool focuses on dates, not the metrics themselves.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions tracking financial metrics, which might imply usage for performance analysis, but doesn't specify prerequisites, exclusions, or compare to siblings like 'getFinancialReportJSON' or 'getFinancialStatementFullAsReported'. Without such context, users must infer usage based on the tool name alone.

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