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 must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions the tool allows users to 'quickly retrieve' data, implying efficiency, but fails to detail critical aspects like rate limits, authentication requirements, data freshness, or error handling. This leaves significant gaps in understanding 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 two sentences that efficiently convey the tool's function and value. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and avoids unnecessary details, though it could be slightly more structured by explicitly stating it's a bulk operation compared to non-bulk siblings.

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 retrieving financial scores for multiple symbols, the description is incomplete. With no annotations and no output schema, it lacks details on response format, pagination, error cases, or performance characteristics. This makes it inadequate for an agent to use the tool effectively without additional context.

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 0 parameters with 100% coverage, meaning no parameters are documented in the schema. The description does not add parameter details, which is acceptable since there are no parameters to explain. A baseline of 4 is appropriate as the description does not need to compensate for missing parameter information.

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 'retrieves a wide range of key financial scores and metrics for multiple symbols', which clarifies the verb (retrieve) and resource (financial scores/metrics). However, it does not distinguish this from sibling tools like 'getFinancialScores' (singular) or 'getKeyMetricsTTMBulk', making the purpose somewhat vague in context.

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?

No explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description mentions it's for 'multiple symbols', but does not specify thresholds, prerequisites, or compare it to similar bulk or single-symbol tools in the sibling list, leaving usage unclear.

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