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 mentions 'track changes over time' and 'view ratings for specific dates,' implying a read-only, historical data retrieval function. However, it lacks details on rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or the format of returned data (e.g., time-series structure). For a tool with no annotations, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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, front-loading the main purpose ('Track changes in financial performance over time') and then elaborating on the API's function. There's no redundant information, and each sentence contributes to understanding the tool's scope and data source efficiently.

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 parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return format (e.g., time-series data structure), potential pagination, error conditions, or how 'limit' affects date-based queries. For a tool with these gaps, the description should provide more contextual detail to guide the agent 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for 'symbol' and 'limit.' The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, mentioning 'stock symbols' and 'specific dates' (though 'dates' isn't a parameter). It doesn't provide additional context like symbol format examples or how 'limit' interacts with date ranges. Given high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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: 'Track changes in financial performance over time' and 'provides access to historical financial ratings for stock symbols.' It specifies the verb ('track changes,' 'provides access') and resource ('historical financial ratings,' 'stock symbols'), making the function unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'getStockGrades' or 'getRatingsSnapshot,' which might also involve ratings data, so it misses full sibling distinction.

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 'track changes over time' and 'view ratings for specific dates,' but doesn't clarify prerequisites, constraints, or how it differs from other rating-related tools in the sibling list (e.g., 'getStockGrades' or 'getRatingsSnapshot'). This leaves the agent without explicit usage context.

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