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 accessing data via an API but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication needs, data freshness, pagination behavior (implied by page/limit parameters), or error handling. This is inadequate for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 core purpose in the first sentence. Both sentences contribute value by specifying the API source and key metrics, with no wasted words, though it could be slightly more structured for clarity.

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 (financial data retrieval), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain return values, error cases, or important behavioral aspects like data scope (e.g., which companies are covered), leaving significant gaps for the agent.

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 fully documents the page and limit parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond implying data retrieval, which aligns with the schema but doesn't provide additional context like default behaviors or constraints beyond what's in the schema descriptions.

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 the latest financial statements for publicly traded companies' with specific metrics like revenue, earnings, and cash flow. It distinguishes itself from siblings like getBalanceSheetStatement or getIncomeStatement by focusing on 'latest' comprehensive statements, but doesn't explicitly contrast with tools like getFinancialStatementFullAsReported.

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 financial metrics but doesn't specify use cases, prerequisites, or differentiate from sibling tools like getFinancialStatementGrowth or getFinancialScores, leaving the agent without contextual direction.

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