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 the full burden. It mentions retrieving a list with total counts, but does not disclose behavioral traits like pagination details (implied by parameters but not explained), rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or data freshness. The description lacks critical operational context for a read operation.

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, consisting of two sentences that directly state the tool's purpose. There is no wasted text, and it efficiently communicates the core functionality without unnecessary details.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the return format (e.g., structure of the list, what fields are included), error conditions, or how results are ordered. For a tool that retrieves financial data, more context on output and usage is needed for effective agent operation.

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 parameters 'limit' and 'page' clearly documented in the schema. The description does not add any meaning beyond the schema—it does not explain how pagination works, default values, or constraints. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.

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 available earnings transcripts for companies' and 'Retrieve a list of companies with earnings transcripts, along with the total number of transcripts available for each company.' It specifies the resource (earnings transcripts) and action (access/retrieve list). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like getEarningsTranscript, getEarningsTranscriptDates, or getEarningsTranscriptList, which appear related.

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 does not mention prerequisites, context for usage, or compare it to sibling tools such as getEarningsTranscript (which might retrieve specific transcripts) or getEarningsTranscriptList (which might list transcripts differently). Usage is implied only by the general purpose.

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