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 full burden. It describes the tool's function (accessing growth data) but lacks behavioral details: it doesn't specify whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, how data is returned (format, pagination), rate limits, or error handling. For a bulk data tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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: the first states the tool's function, and the second explains its analytical value. It's front-loaded with key information and avoids unnecessary details, though it could be slightly more concise by integrating the two sentences.

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 tool's complexity (bulk financial data analysis), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like data format, pagination, or error handling, and doesn't explain return values. For a tool with two required parameters and no structured output documentation, more context is needed.

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%, with both parameters (year and period) well-documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, such as format examples or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't need to.

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: providing access to growth data for income statements across multiple companies, tracking trends over time for metrics like revenue and net income. It specifies the resource (income statements) and scope (bulk/multiple companies), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'getIncomeStatementGrowth' (single company) or 'getIncomeStatementsBulk' (raw statements without growth analysis).

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 mentions tracking growth trends over time, which implies usage for trend analysis, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'getIncomeStatementGrowth' (single company) or 'getFinancialStatementGrowth' (broader financial statements). No prerequisites, exclusions, or comparison to sibling tools are stated.

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