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 a 'comprehensive list' with details like filing dates and links to SEC documents, but does not disclose critical behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication requirements, data freshness, pagination, error handling, or whether it's a read-only operation (implied by 'access' but not explicit). This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how to interact with the tool effectively.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose ('Access a comprehensive list...'). It uses two sentences efficiently: the first states the action and resource, and the second adds context about the data included. There is no wasted verbiage, making it easy to parse, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points for data fields).

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 IPO disclosure data (which involves regulatory filings and time-sensitive information), the description is incomplete. No annotations are provided to cover behavioral aspects, and there is no output schema to explain return values. The description mentions data fields like filing dates and CIK numbers but does not detail the response structure, error cases, or limitations, leaving the agent with insufficient context for reliable 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 parameters 'from' and 'to' clearly documented as start and end dates in YYYY-MM-DD format. The description does not add any meaning beyond this schema, as it does not mention parameters at all. However, with high schema coverage, the baseline score is 3, as the schema adequately defines the parameters without needing additional 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: 'Access a comprehensive list of disclosure filings for upcoming initial public offerings (IPOs)' with the FMP IPO Disclosures API. It specifies the resource (IPO disclosure filings) and verb (access/list), but does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like 'getIPOCalendar' or 'getIPOProspectuses', which likely serve related but distinct purposes.

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 updated on regulatory filings but does not specify use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions. For example, it does not clarify if this is for real-time data, historical analysis, or how it compares to sibling tools like 'getIPOCalendar' (which might list IPO dates) or 'getIPOProspectuses' (which might provide prospectus documents).

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