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 describes the tool as accessing and analyzing data, implying a read-only operation, but does not specify authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or the format of returned data. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with no annotations.

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, with no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose and follows with context on analysis. However, it could be slightly more direct by eliminating the 'to gain insights' clause, which is somewhat redundant.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., data structure, examples), error conditions, or behavioral traits like pagination or rate limits. For a tool with 4 parameters and no structured metadata, this leaves too much unspecified.

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 parameters (symbol, year, quarter, cik). The description adds no additional meaning about parameters, such as valid symbol formats, year/quarter ranges, or CIK usage. 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: 'Access comprehensive disclosure data for mutual funds with the FMP Mutual Fund Disclosures API. Analyze recent filings, balance sheets, and financial reports to gain insights into mutual fund portfolios.' It specifies the action ('access comprehensive disclosure data'), resource ('mutual funds'), and scope ('FMP Mutual Fund Disclosures API'), but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'searchFundDisclosures' or 'getFundDisclosureDates'.

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 data for insights but does not specify prerequisites, constraints, or when to choose this over similar tools like 'searchFundDisclosures' or 'getFundDisclosureDates' in the sibling list.

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