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 states the tool 'provides an overview' and 'helps analyze', which suggests a read-only, non-destructive operation, but this is implied rather than explicit. The description lacks details on rate limits, authentication requirements, error handling, or the format/structure of the output (especially critical since no output schema exists). For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its operational behavior.

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: the first states the tool's purpose, and the second explains its utility. There is no redundant information or fluff, and it front-loads the key functionality. However, it could be slightly more efficient by combining the two sentences or adding bullet points for clarity, but overall it earns its place without waste.

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 data analysis, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It adequately explains the purpose but fails to address critical behavioral aspects (e.g., data freshness, pagination, error cases) or provide guidance on output format. For a tool with three required parameters and no structured output information, the description should do more to compensate, such as hinting at the return structure or usage constraints, making it insufficient for full contextual understanding.

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 'cik' (CIK number), 'year' (Year of filing), and 'quarter' (Quarter of filing). The description does not add any additional semantic context beyond what the schema provides—it doesn't explain what a CIK is, how the year/quarter relate to filing dates, or provide examples. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema handles the parameter documentation adequately without extra value from the description.

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: 'provides an overview of the sectors and industries that institutional holders are investing in' and 'analyze how institutional investors distribute their holdings across different industries'. It specifies the verb ('provides', 'analyze') and resource ('institutional holders', 'sectors and industries'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'getHolderPerformanceSummary' or 'getFundSectorWeighting', which might cover related institutional data.

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 mentions that the tool 'helps analyze how institutional investors distribute their holdings across different industries and track changes in their investment strategies over time', which implies usage for investment analysis and tracking. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'getFundSectorWeighting' for fund-level sector data or 'getIndustryPerformanceSnapshot' for industry performance). There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools, leaving the agent with minimal contextual direction.

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