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 tool retrieves data and provides insights, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication requirements, data freshness, pagination, or error handling. For a bulk data retrieval tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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: first states the core functionality, second adds value about the data's nature. It's appropriately sized for a no-parameter tool, though the second sentence could be slightly more specific about what 'critical financial ratios and metrics' includes.

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 bulk financial data retrieval with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what format the data returns, how many companies are included, whether there are size limits, or what specific metrics are provided. For a tool that presumably returns substantial 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?

The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, maintaining focus on the tool's purpose. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4.

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: 'retrieve trailing twelve months (TTM) data for all companies available in the database' and 'provides critical financial ratios and metrics'. It specifies the verb ('retrieve'), resource ('TTM data for all companies'), and scope ('all companies available'), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'getKeyMetricsTTM' or 'getFinancialRatiosTTM'.

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 prerequisites, timing considerations, or compare it to sibling tools like 'getKeyMetricsTTM' (single company) or 'getRatiosTTMBulk' (similar bulk ratios). Usage context is implied but not explicit.

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