Financial Modeling Prep MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is a retrieval operation ('Retrieve') which implies read-only behavior, but doesn't address important aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, data freshness, error conditions, or response format. The description focuses on what owner earnings are rather than how the tool behaves operationally.

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 reasonably concise with two sentences that efficiently explain what the tool does and why the metric matters. The first sentence clearly states the action and resource, while the second provides context about the metric's importance. There's no unnecessary repetition or verbose explanations.

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?

For a financial data retrieval tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the response contains (e.g., time periods, units, calculation methodology), doesn't mention data sources or update frequency, and provides no error handling information. Given the complexity of financial metrics and the lack of structured documentation, more operational context is needed.

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 (the 'symbol' parameter is clearly documented as 'Stock symbol'), so the baseline is 3. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides - it doesn't clarify symbol format requirements, valid exchanges, or provide examples. No additional parameter context is given.

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 a company's owner earnings' using a specific API. It explains what owner earnings represent ('more accurate representation of cash available to shareholders by adjusting net income'), which helps distinguish it from other financial metrics. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'getCashFlowStatement' or 'getKeyMetrics' that might provide related financial data.

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 owner earnings are 'crucial for evaluating a company's profitability from the perspective of investors,' but doesn't specify scenarios where this metric is preferred over other profitability measures available in sibling tools. There's no mention of prerequisites, limitations, or comparative context with similar tools.

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