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 'most recent SEC filings' and 'access essential regulatory documents', but fails to describe critical behaviors: it doesn't specify whether this is a read-only operation (implied but not stated), mention pagination behavior (though 'page' parameter exists), rate limits, authentication requirements, or what the output format looks like. For a tool with no annotations, 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: the first states the core purpose, and the second lists document types. There's no wasted text, and it's appropriately front-loaded with the main function. However, it could be slightly more concise by integrating the document types into the first sentence.

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 complexity (4 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is insufficient. It lacks behavioral context (e.g., read-only nature, pagination), usage guidelines, and output details. While it clearly states the purpose, it doesn't compensate for the missing structured information, making it incomplete for effective agent use.

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%, so the schema already documents all four parameters ('from', 'to', 'page', 'limit') with descriptions. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying date-range filtering through 'most recent', which is already covered by the required 'from' and 'to' parameters. This meets the baseline for 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: 'Stay updated with the most recent SEC filings from publicly traded companies' and specifies the resource ('SEC filings') and types ('financial statements, annual reports, 8-K, 10-K, and 10-Q forms'). It distinguishes itself from many siblings by focusing on SEC filings, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar tools like 'getLatest8KFilings' or 'getFilingsBySymbol'.

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 accessing 'most recent SEC filings' but doesn't specify use cases, prerequisites, or compare it to sibling tools like 'getFilingsBySymbol' or 'getLatest8KFilings'. This leaves the agent without clear decision-making criteria.

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