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. It describes the type of data returned (insights into performance, portfolio changes, benchmark comparisons) but lacks critical behavioral details such as whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions might be needed, rate limits, pagination behavior (implied by the 'page' parameter but not explained), or the format of the output. For a tool with no 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 concise and well-structured in two sentences, with no wasted words. It front-loads the purpose and follows with the utility of the data. However, it could be slightly more efficient by integrating the context more tightly, but it remains clear and to the point.

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 performance data, lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It hints at the data returned but does not specify the structure, types of insights (e.g., metrics like returns or comparisons), or how benchmarks like S&P 500 are integrated. For a tool with no structured behavioral or output information, this leaves too much ambiguity for effective use by an AI agent.

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 already documents both parameters (cik and page). The description does not add any meaning beyond what the schema provides—it does not explain what a CIK number is, how the page parameter works in practice, or any additional context about inputs. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter documentation 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: to provide insights into institutional investor performance based on stock holdings, including tracking performance, portfolio changes, and benchmark comparisons. It specifies the resource (institutional investors) and verb (provides insights), but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like getHolderIndustryBreakdown or getPositionsSummary, which might offer related but different 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 data helps track performance and comparisons, implying usage for analyzing institutional investors, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., getHolderIndustryBreakdown for industry breakdowns or getPositionsSummary for position summaries). There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or named alternatives stated.

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