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 must fully disclose behavioral traits. It states the tool retrieves data via an API but lacks details on rate limits, authentication requirements, error handling, or response format. While it implies a read-only operation ('retrieve'), it does not explicitly confirm safety or discuss potential limitations like date range constraints or data freshness.

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 well-structured in two sentences: the first states the tool's purpose, and the second explains the API's general value. There is no redundant information, and it front-loads the core functionality. However, it could be slightly more efficient by integrating the utility explanation into the purpose statement.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., numeric value, JSON structure) or address behavioral aspects like error cases or dependencies. For a tool with no structured metadata, more detail on output and operational context is needed to ensure effective use by 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'symbol' parameter clearly documented as 'Stock symbol.' The description adds minimal value beyond this, mentioning 'specific company' and 'any given date' but not clarifying date handling (e.g., if a date parameter is implied or defaulted). Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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: 'Retrieve the market capitalization for a specific company on any given date.' It specifies the verb ('retrieve'), resource ('market capitalization'), and scope ('specific company,' 'any given date'). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'getHistoricalMarketCap' or 'getBatchMarketCap,' which likely serve similar purposes with different scopes or parameters.

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 the API's general utility ('assess the size and value of a company') but does not specify use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions. With many sibling tools available (e.g., 'getHistoricalMarketCap' for historical data, 'getBatchMarketCap' for multiple symbols), the lack of comparative context leaves usage ambiguous.

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