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 describes what data is returned (IPO dates, company names, etc.) but lacks critical behavioral details: it doesn't mention whether this is a read-only operation, any rate limits, authentication requirements, error handling, or data freshness. For a tool with no annotations, 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. The first sentence clearly states the tool's purpose and API source, while the second elaborates on the data details. There's no unnecessary fluff, and it's front-loaded with essential information. However, it could be slightly more efficient by integrating the data details into the first sentence.

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 financial data and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It covers the basic purpose and data types but misses behavioral aspects (e.g., read-only status, rate limits), usage context, and output format details. For a tool with no structured safety or output information, more descriptive context is needed to ensure reliable agent use.

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 'from' and 'to' parameters as start and end dates in YYYY-MM-DD format. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, such as default date ranges or validation rules. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate—the description doesn't compensate but doesn't need to given the schema's completeness.

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 list of all upcoming initial public offerings (IPOs)' with the FMP IPO Calendar API. It specifies the resource (IPOs) and verb (access/list), and mentions key details like dates, company names, pricing, and exchange listings. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like getEarningsCalendar or getDividendsCalendar, which are also calendar-based tools on this server.

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 staying up to date on IPOs but doesn't specify use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions. With many sibling tools available (e.g., getEarningsCalendar for earnings, getEconomicCalendar for economic events), there's no indication of when this tool is preferred over others for calendar-related data.

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