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 accessing 'comprehensive records' and tracking 'historical changes,' but doesn't specify whether this is a read-only operation, if there are rate limits, authentication requirements, or what the output format looks like. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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, consisting of two sentences that directly state the tool's purpose. There's no wasted verbiage, and it efficiently communicates the core functionality. However, it could be slightly more structured by explicitly separating purpose from context.

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 accessing historical analyst grades, the lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the output contains (e.g., date ranges, rating types), potential limitations, or error handling. For a tool with no structured behavioral data, this leaves the agent under-informed.

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 fully documents both parameters ('symbol' and 'limit'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining what types of stock symbols are valid or how the limit affects results. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the 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 a comprehensive record of analyst grades' and 'track historical changes in analyst ratings for specific stock symbols.' It specifies the verb ('access', 'track'), resource ('analyst grades', 'analyst ratings'), and scope ('historical changes', 'specific stock symbols'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'getHistoricalRatings' or 'getStockGrades', which appear to be related.

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 any prerequisites, exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools such as 'getHistoricalRatings' or 'getStockGrades', which could serve similar purposes. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and description alone.

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