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 retrieves data from 'official company filings,' implying it's a read-only operation, but doesn't specify authentication needs, rate limits, data freshness, or error handling. For a financial data tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior and constraints.

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 front-loaded, with two sentences that efficiently convey the core purpose and key details. Every sentence adds value: the first defines the tool's function, and the second elaborates on data sources and examples. There's no unnecessary information, making it easy to scan and understand.

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 retrieval, lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like data latency, authentication, or error cases, and while it hints at the data source, it doesn't explain the format or structure of returned income statements. For a tool with 3 parameters and no structured output info, more context is needed to be fully actionable.

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 all parameters (symbol, limit, period) with descriptions and enums. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining the significance of 'As Reported' in relation to parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting, but no extra value is added.

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: 'Retrieve income statements as they were reported by the company' with specific details about accessing 'raw financial data directly from official company filings' and examples like 'revenue, expenses, and net income.' It distinguishes from generic income statement tools by emphasizing 'As Reported' data, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'getIncomeStatement' or 'getIncomeStatementGrowth'.

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 accessing 'As Reported Income Statements API' but doesn't explain when this is preferable over other income statement tools in the sibling list, such as 'getIncomeStatement' (which might provide standardized data) or 'getIncomeStatementGrowth' (for growth metrics). There are no explicit when/when-not instructions or named alternatives.

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