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 accessing disclosures via an API but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication requirements, pagination behavior (implied by parameters but not explained), or what the return format looks like. The description is vague about what 'latest' means temporally and lacks operational details.

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 appropriately sized with two sentences that efficiently convey the tool's purpose and high-level utility. It's front-loaded with the core function and avoids unnecessary details, though it could be slightly more structured by separating usage context from purpose.

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 (accessing financial data via an API), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., data format, fields), error conditions, or prerequisites. For a data-fetching tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps for an AI 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 already documents both parameters (page and limit for pagination). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as default values, constraints, or usage examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 disclosures from U.S. Senate members' and specifies the resource (financial disclosures) and scope (U.S. Senate members, latest). It distinguishes from siblings like 'getSenateTrades' by focusing on disclosures rather than trades, though it doesn't explicitly contrast 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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions tracking 'recent trades, asset ownership, and transaction details' but doesn't clarify if this is the primary use case or how it differs from tools like 'getLatestHouseDisclosures' or 'getSenateTrades'. No explicit when/when-not instructions are given.

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