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 'comprehensive list' and 'up-to-date financial data' but lacks details on data freshness, rate limits, authentication requirements, or error handling. The description implies a read-only operation but does not explicitly state it, and behavioral traits like pagination or response format are omitted.

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 but contains redundancy (e.g., 'financial statements' mentioned twice) and a grammatical error ('are provided' at the end). It front-loads the main purpose but could be more streamlined by removing repetitive phrases and fixing the structure for better clarity.

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 parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers the basic purpose and data scope. However, it lacks details on output format (e.g., list structure, fields included) and behavioral aspects like data limitations or API constraints, which are important for a list-retrieval tool without annotations.

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 tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately focuses on the tool's purpose without redundant parameter details, aligning with the baseline expectation for parameterless tools.

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: 'Access a comprehensive list of companies with available financial statements' and specifies the data source ('FMP Financial Statement Symbols List API'). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on financial statement availability rather than specific financial data retrieval (e.g., getBalanceSheetStatement) or general company lists (e.g., getCompanySymbols). However, it could be more precise about the output format (e.g., list of symbols vs. detailed company data).

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 'Find companies listed on major global exchanges' but does not clarify how this differs from other list tools like getCompanySymbols or getActivelyTradingList. No exclusions, prerequisites, or comparative context are provided, leaving usage ambiguous.

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