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. While it mentions tracking and analyzing growth metrics, it doesn't describe what the tool actually returns (e.g., percentage changes, raw values, time series), whether it requires authentication, rate limits, or any side effects. The description is too high-level to guide an agent on behavioral expectations.

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 states the core purpose, and the second adds value about insights. There's no wasted verbiage, though it could be slightly more specific about the tool's output format.

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 tool with 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., growth percentages, time periods covered), how results are structured, or any behavioral constraints. Given the complexity of financial growth analysis and lack of structured metadata, the description should provide more operational context.

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 fully documents the three parameters (symbol, limit, period). The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. It mentions analyzing evolution 'over time' which loosely relates to the period parameter, but provides no additional syntax or format details. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the work.

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: 'Track key financial growth metrics with the Income Statement Growth API. Analyze how revenue, profits, and expenses have evolved over time.' It specifies the verb ('track', 'analyze') and resource ('income statement growth metrics'), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'getIncomeStatementGrowthBulk' or 'getFinancialStatementGrowth', which appear to serve similar 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 insights into 'financial health and operational efficiency' but doesn't specify use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions. With many sibling tools related to financial statements and growth metrics, this lack of differentiation is a significant gap.

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