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 must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions accessing metrics via an API but fails to detail critical aspects like rate limits, authentication requirements, error handling, or data freshness. The phrase 'evaluate revenue, net income, P/E ratio, and more' hints at output content but doesn't specify format or completeness, leaving significant gaps in transparency.

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 well-structured in two sentences, front-loading the core purpose and following with usage context. There's minimal redundancy, though the second sentence could be more directly actionable. It efficiently conveys key information 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?

Given the tool's complexity (financial data retrieval with 3 parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain return values, error conditions, or behavioral constraints like API limits, which are crucial for an agent to use the tool effectively. The mention of specific metrics (e.g., P/E ratio) is helpful but insufficient for full contextual understanding.

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 already documents all parameters (symbol, limit, period) adequately. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying metrics are company-specific (via 'for a company'), which aligns with the 'symbol' parameter but doesn't enhance understanding beyond the schema. 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: 'Access essential financial metrics for a company with the FMP Financial Key Metrics API.' It specifies the action ('access'), resource ('financial metrics'), and scope ('for a company'), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'getKeyMetricsTTM' or 'getRatios', which reduces it from 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 minimal usage guidance, mentioning 'to assess performance and compare it to competitors,' which implies a context of financial analysis. However, it lacks explicit when-to-use rules, alternatives (e.g., vs. 'getKeyMetricsTTM'), or prerequisites, leaving the agent with insufficient direction for tool selection.

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