Financial Modeling Prep MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions retrieval and data access but fails to describe critical behaviors: authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination (implied by 'limit' parameter but not explained), error handling, or response format. For a data retrieval tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it operates.

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 efficiently structured in two sentences: the first states the core action and API source, the second elaborates on data scope and purpose. It avoids redundancy and wastes no words, though it could be slightly more front-loaded by leading with the key differentiator (all three statement types).

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 data retrieval), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address authentication, rate limits, error cases, response structure, or how the 'as reported' data differs from other formats. For a tool with three parameters and no structured behavioral hints, more contextual information is needed for effective use.

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 all three parameters (symbol, limit, period). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema—it doesn't explain symbol format constraints, period implications, or limit behavior beyond the default/max. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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: 'Retrieve comprehensive financial statements as reported by companies' with specific resources (income, balance sheet, cash flow statements) and context (original form for detailed analysis). It distinguishes itself from siblings like getBalanceSheetStatementAsReported by covering all three statement types, but doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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 doesn't mention sibling tools like getFinancialStatementGrowth or getFinancialReportJSON, nor does it specify use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions. The context is implied through 'detailed analysis' but lacks explicit usage instructions.

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