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 must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions accessing data via an API and tracking trends, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, data freshness, or response format. For a tool with no annotations, this is insufficient, as it doesn't cover critical operational aspects, warranting a score of 2.

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 front-loaded, with two sentences that directly state the tool's function and purpose. There is no unnecessary information, and it efficiently communicates the core idea. However, it could be slightly improved by integrating usage hints, so it scores 4.

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 (historical data retrieval with multiple parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain behavioral traits, usage guidelines, or output details, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to understand and invoke the tool effectively. This results in a score of 2.

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, clearly documenting all four parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, such as format examples or constraints. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score is 3, 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: 'Access historical price-to-earnings (P/E) ratios by industry' and 'Track valuation trends across various industries.' It specifies the verb ('access,' 'track') and resource ('historical P/E ratios by industry'), making the function evident. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'getHistoricalSectorPE' or 'getIndustryPESnapshot,' which limits the score to 4.

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 tracking valuation trends but does not specify prerequisites, exclusions, or compare it to related tools such as 'getHistoricalSectorPE' or 'getIndustryPESnapshot.' Without any usage context or alternatives, the score is 2.

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