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 assesses financial strength and provides metrics, but lacks critical details: it doesn't mention whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or what the output format looks like (especially since there's no output schema). 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 well-structured in two sentences: the first states the purpose and API, the second lists key metrics and benefits. There's no wasted text, and it's front-loaded with the core functionality. However, it could be slightly more efficient by integrating the metrics into the first sentence.

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 (financial assessment with no annotations and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It explains what the tool does but fails to address behavioral aspects like safety, performance, or output structure. For a tool that likely returns detailed financial scores, more context on return values or usage constraints is needed to be fully helpful to an 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 clear documentation for 'symbol' (stock symbol) and 'limit' (default and max values). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining valid symbol formats or how the limit affects results. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't enhance parameter understanding.

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: 'Assess a company's financial strength using the Financial Health Scores API' with specific metrics like Altman Z-Score and Piotroski Score. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on financial health scores rather than other financial data (e.g., balance sheets, quotes, or valuations). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential similar tools like 'getFinancialScoresBulk' in the sibling list.

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 insights into financial health, but doesn't specify use cases, prerequisites, or compare it to other tools in the extensive sibling list (e.g., 'getFinancialRatiosTTM' or 'getKeyMetrics'). This leaves the agent without clear direction on selection.

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