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. It mentions using the 'Financial Statement Growth API' and tracking changes over time, but does not disclose critical behavioral traits such as data freshness, rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or response format. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 the core purpose in the first sentence. Both sentences earn their place by explaining what the tool does and its value. However, it could be slightly more structured by explicitly listing the financial statement types or clarifying the output.

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 financial analysis, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on what the growth analysis returns (e.g., percentage changes, time periods), how results are structured, or any limitations. For a tool with three parameters and no structured output documentation, this is inadequate.

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 already documents all three parameters (symbol, limit, period) with descriptions and enum values. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining how 'period' interacts with growth analysis or what 'limit' applies to. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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: 'Analyze the growth of key financial statement items across income, balance sheet, and cash flow statements' and 'Track changes over time to understand trends in financial performance.' It specifies the verb ('analyze', 'track') and resource ('financial statement items'), but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'getIncomeStatementGrowth' or 'getBalanceSheetStatementGrowth'.

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 analyzing growth across multiple statement types but does not specify scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions. With many sibling tools for specific financial statements, this lack of differentiation is a significant gap.

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