Financial Modeling Prep MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It describes what data is returned (financial details, SEC links) but doesn't address important behavioral aspects like whether this is a read-only operation (implied but not stated), rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or response format. For a data retrieval tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool 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 efficiently structured in two sentences that convey the core functionality and value proposition. The first sentence states what the tool does and what data it provides, while the second explains the benefit to users. There's minimal redundancy, though it could be slightly more front-loaded with the most critical information about date parameters.

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?

For a data retrieval tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description provides adequate but incomplete context. It explains what data is returned but not the structure or format. With no annotations and no output schema, users lack information about response format, pagination, error handling, and authentication requirements. The description covers the 'what' but misses important 'how' and 'constraints' aspects.

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 parameter documentation ('from' and 'to' dates in YYYY-MM-DD format). The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain date range requirements, default behavior, or parameter interactions. With complete schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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 comprehensive information on IPO prospectuses' and lists specific data elements like public offering prices, discounts, commissions, and links to SEC prospectuses. It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing specifically on IPO prospectuses, which is unique among the many financial data tools listed. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with similar tools like 'getIPOCalendar' or 'getIPODisclosures' that might also relate to IPOs.

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 'helping investors stay informed on companies entering the public market' which gives general context, but doesn't specify when this tool is preferable to other IPO-related tools like 'getIPOCalendar' or 'getIPODisclosures' that appear in the sibling list. There's no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance.

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