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 a read operation ('retrieve') but doesn't specify whether it requires authentication, rate limits, pagination behavior, error handling, or the format of returned data. The mention of 'latest filings' hints at recency but lacks concrete details on how data is filtered or sorted. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 with two sentences that are front-loaded with the core functionality. The first sentence clearly states the purpose, and the second adds context about staying current. There's minimal waste, though the second sentence could be more specific about the tool's unique value. Overall, it's efficiently structured.

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 disclosures and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'detailed disclosures' include, how results are formatted, or any behavioral aspects like data freshness or limitations. For a tool with no structured support beyond the input schema, this leaves too many unknowns for effective use by an AI agent.

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 clear documentation for both parameters ('symbol' as fund symbol and 'cik' as optional CIK number). The description doesn't add any additional meaning beyond this, such as explaining the relationship between symbol and CIK or providing examples. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema handles the parameter semantics adequately.

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 detailed disclosures for mutual funds and ETFs based on filing dates' with the specific API source mentioned. It uses the verb 'retrieve' with the resource 'disclosures' and scope 'mutual funds and ETFs'. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'getFundDisclosure' or 'searchFundDisclosures', which appears to be a related functionality.

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 minimal usage guidance. It mentions 'Stay current with the latest filings and track regulatory updates effectively,' which implies a use case for monitoring, but doesn't specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'getFundDisclosure' or 'searchFundDisclosures' from the sibling list. No explicit when/when-not scenarios or prerequisites are provided.

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