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 full burden. It mentions 'comprehensive data' and 'essential details' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or response format. For a data retrieval tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.

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 efficiently structured in two sentences: one stating the tool's purpose and API source, another listing example data points. It's front-loaded with key information and avoids unnecessary details, though it could be slightly more concise by integrating the examples into the first sentence.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a data retrieval tool. It doesn't explain what 'comprehensive data' includes beyond a few examples, nor does it describe the response structure, pagination, or error cases. This leaves the agent with insufficient context to use the tool effectively.

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%, with the single parameter 'symbol' documented as 'Fund symbol'. The description adds context by implying this symbol corresponds to ETFs or mutual funds, but doesn't provide additional semantics like format examples or validation rules. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already covers the parameter 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: 'Access comprehensive data on ETFs and mutual funds' and 'Retrieve essential details' with specific examples like ticker symbol, fund name, expense ratio, and assets under management. It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on fund information retrieval rather than calculations, quotes, or other data types, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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 doesn't mention prerequisites, context for usage, or differentiate from similar tools like getETFList or getMutualFundQuotes. The agent must infer usage from the purpose alone.

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