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 but only states it 'allows users to retrieve' data without disclosing behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication requirements, pagination, data freshness, or error handling. It mentions 'large-scale data analysis' which hints at volume but lacks concrete guidance on limitations or performance characteristics.

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 concise with two sentences that efficiently convey purpose and scope. The first sentence states the core function, and the second adds valuable context about use case and data components without unnecessary elaboration.

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 read-only tool with 2 parameters and 100% schema coverage, the description provides adequate purpose and context. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it lacks details about return format, data structure, or any behavioral constraints that would be important for bulk data operations.

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 both parameters (year and period). The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, maintaining the baseline score of 3 where structured data does the heavy lifting.

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 detailed income statement data in bulk' with specific financial components (revenue, gross profit, expenses, net income). It distinguishes from non-bulk siblings like 'getIncomeStatement' but doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar bulk tools like 'getBalanceSheetStatementsBulk' or 'getCashFlowStatementsBulk'.

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 implies usage context ('large-scale data analysis') and suggests when to use it (for bulk retrieval vs single statements). However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives among the many sibling tools, leaving some ambiguity about tool selection.

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