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 of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'latest equity offerings' and 'insights into exempt offerings and amendments,' but fails to describe key behaviors such as pagination handling (implied by page/limit parameters), rate limits, authentication needs, or what the output looks like (no output schema). This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how to invoke it effectively.

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, stating the purpose in the first sentence. Both sentences are relevant, with no wasted words. However, it could be slightly more structured by explicitly mentioning the tool's scope or limitations, but it's efficient overall, warranting a score of 4.

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 (3 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on output format, error handling, or behavioral traits like pagination. While it states the purpose, it doesn't provide enough context for an agent to fully understand how to use the tool effectively, especially compared to sibling tools, resulting in a score of 2.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, detailing page, limit, and cik parameters with defaults and constraints. The description adds no additional semantic context beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't explain what 'CIK' means or how filtering works). With high schema coverage, the baseline score is 3, as the description does not compensate but also doesn't detract.

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: 'Stay informed about the latest equity offerings' and 'Track new shares being issued by companies and get insights into exempt offerings and amendments.' It specifies the resource (equity offerings) and actions (track, get insights). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'searchEquityOfferings' or 'getEquityOfferingsByCIK', which limits the score to 4.

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 mentions tracking 'latest' offerings but does not specify criteria like timeframes, comparison with other tools, or prerequisites. With many sibling tools (e.g., 'searchEquityOfferings'), the lack of explicit usage context results in a score of 2.

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