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 provides an 'overview' and 'analyzes' data, implying a read-only operation, but does not specify behavioral traits such as data freshness, rate limits, authentication requirements, or what the output format looks like (especially since there is no output schema). This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how to use it effectively.

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 intended audience. There is no unnecessary verbosity, and each sentence contributes to understanding the tool's role, though it could be slightly more structured for clarity.

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 analysis, the lack of annotations and output schema means the description should compensate more. It fails to explain key aspects like the format of the returned data, any limitations (e.g., date ranges supported), or how it differs from similar tools. This makes it incomplete for an agent to rely on without additional 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with parameters 'year' and 'quarter' well-documented in the schema itself. The description adds minimal semantic context by mentioning 'over a specific period,' which aligns with the parameters but does not provide additional details beyond what the schema already covers. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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: 'provides an overview of how various industries are performing financially' and 'analyzing the value of industries over a specific period.' It specifies the verb ('provides an overview/analyzing') and resource ('industries'), but does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like 'getIndustryPerformanceSnapshot' or 'getHistoricalIndustryPerformance,' which appear related.

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 that it 'helps investors and analysts understand the health of entire sectors and make informed decisions about sector-based investments,' which implies a context of financial analysis. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'getIndustryPerformanceSnapshot' or 'getHistoricalIndustryPerformance'), nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions.

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