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 'retrieves dates,' implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify aspects like rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or the format of returned data. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps, though it correctly implies a non-destructive action.

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 tool's purpose, and the second explains its value. There's no wasted verbiage, and it's front-loaded with the core functionality. However, it could be slightly more efficient by integrating the value statement more tightly, but overall, it's appropriately sized.

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 (retrieving filing dates for institutional investors), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the returned data looks like (e.g., date format, structure), potential limitations, or how to interpret the results. For a tool with no structured output information, this leaves the agent under-informed about what to expect.

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 the 'cik' parameter documented as 'CIK number.' The description doesn't add any semantic details beyond this, such as explaining what a CIK is or providing examples. Since the schema already covers the parameter adequately, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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 dates associated with Form 13F filings by institutional investors.' It specifies the verb ('retrieve'), resource ('dates'), and target ('Form 13F filings'), making it distinct from sibling tools focused on different financial data types. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential similar tools like 'getFilingsByCIK' or 'getFinancialReportsDates,' which slightly reduces clarity.

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 tool is 'crucial for tracking stock holdings... at specific points in time,' but this is a general benefit statement, not usage instructions. There's no mention of prerequisites, when to choose this over other filing-related tools, or any exclusions, leaving the agent without practical usage context.

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