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 for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves data but doesn't mention whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, rate limits, data freshness, or what format the comprehensive metrics are returned in. The description is insufficient for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 efficiently structured in two sentences that cover purpose and scope without unnecessary details. It's appropriately sized for a single-parameter tool, though the second sentence could be slightly more direct.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'comprehensive set' includes, the return format, or behavioral aspects like error handling. Given the complexity of financial metrics and lack of structured data, more context is needed.

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% with one parameter documented as 'Stock symbol.' The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema 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 retrieves trailing twelve-month key performance metrics for financial analysis, specifying the resource (TTM key metrics) and purpose (analyze financial health). However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'getKeyMetrics' or 'getKeyMetricsTTMBulk' that likely serve similar functions.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description mentions detailed analysis of financial health but doesn't specify prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or when other tools like 'getKeyMetrics' (non-TTM) or bulk versions might be better suited.

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