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 for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool discovers recent campaigns but lacks critical details: it doesn't mention pagination behavior (implied by page/limit parameters), rate limits, authentication needs, data freshness, or error handling. For a read-only list tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap 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 front-loaded, with two sentences that directly state the tool's purpose and value. There's no wasted text, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating functional purpose from benefits). It efficiently communicates core information without redundancy.

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 moderate complexity (list operation with pagination), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but incomplete. It covers the 'what' but lacks behavioral context (e.g., pagination, data format) and usage guidance. For a tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, it should provide more operational details to be fully helpful.

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 both parameters (page, limit) fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond implying a list of results. Since the schema handles parameter documentation adequately, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't need to given 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: 'Discover the most recent crowdfunding campaigns' with the FMP API, specifying the resource (crowdfunding campaigns) and key details provided (companies/projects raising funds, financial details, offering terms). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'searchCrowdfundingCampaigns' by emphasizing 'most recent' rather than general search, though not explicitly contrasting them.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions staying informed on active campaigns but doesn't specify use cases, prerequisites, or differentiate from sibling tools like 'getCrowdfundingCampaignsByCIK' or 'searchCrowdfundingCampaigns', leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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