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 mentions the API provides 'details on various transaction actions' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, rate limits, pagination, or error conditions. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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 directly state the purpose and scope. It avoids unnecessary details and is front-loaded with the main function. However, the second sentence slightly repeats information about transaction actions without adding new value.

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 simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate but lacks completeness. Without annotations, it should disclose more about behavior (e.g., read-only nature, response format). The absence of an output schema means the description should ideally hint at what data is returned, but it only vaguely mentions 'details' without specifying structure or content.

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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents the absence of parameters. The description doesn't need to add parameter information, and it appropriately doesn't mention any. This meets the baseline expectation for a parameterless tool.

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: 'Access a comprehensive list of insider transaction types' and specifies it uses the 'All Insider Transaction Types API'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'getInsiderTradeStatistics' or 'searchInsiderTrades' by focusing on transaction types rather than statistics or trade data. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with these siblings in the description text.

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 doesn't mention any prerequisites, context for usage, or compare it to related tools like 'getInsiderTradeStatistics' or 'searchInsiderTrades'. The agent must infer usage from the purpose alone.

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