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 is for viewing and analyzing P/E ratios, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify if it requires authentication, has rate limits, returns paginated data, or handles errors. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 directly state the tool's purpose and utility. There's no wasted text, and it efficiently communicates the core function. A perfect score is reserved for descriptions that also include usage guidelines or parameter insights without sacrificing brevity.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool with three parameters. It doesn't explain what the output looks like (e.g., list of industries with P/E ratios), potential errors, or behavioral traits like data freshness. For a read-only analysis tool, this leaves the agent with insufficient context to use it effectively.

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 (date, exchange, industry). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as example values or constraints. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage but doesn't enhance understanding.

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: 'View price-to-earnings (P/E) ratios for different industries' and 'Analyze valuation levels across various industries.' It specifies the verb ('View'/'Analyze') and resource ('P/E ratios'/'valuation levels'), making the purpose explicit. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'getSectorPESnapshot' or 'getHistoricalIndustryPE,' which would be needed for a perfect score.

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 analyzing valuation levels but doesn't specify contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions. With many sibling tools (e.g., 'getSectorPESnapshot,' 'getHistoricalIndustryPE'), the lack of comparative usage advice leaves the agent without clear direction.

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