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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'real-time updates' which suggests current data, but doesn't clarify whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions might be needed, rate limits, pagination behavior (implied by parameters but not explained), or what the response format looks like. For a data retrieval tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 sentence states the core purpose, and the second adds context about the types of content available. There's no wasted verbiage, and the information is front-loaded with the essential action. It could be slightly more specific about the retrieval mechanism to earn a perfect score.

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 data retrieval tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (structure, fields, format), how pagination works despite having page/limit parameters, error conditions, or authentication requirements. The description provides basic purpose but lacks the operational context needed for effective tool invocation.

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, so all parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's already in the schema. It mentions date-based retrieval generally but doesn't provide additional context about parameter usage, relationships, or constraints. The baseline score of 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 official company press releases' with the FMP Press Releases API. It specifies the resource (press releases) and the action (access/get), and mentions the types of content included (corporate announcements, earnings reports, mergers). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from its sibling 'searchPressReleases', which appears to be a search function rather than a date-range retrieval tool.

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 doesn't mention the sibling 'searchPressReleases' tool or explain that this tool retrieves press releases by date range while the sibling might search by keyword. There are no usage prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual recommendations provided.

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