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 the API provides price target data but doesn't specify whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, rate limits, data freshness, or what format the response takes. For a tool with no 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 that directly explain the tool's function and what data it provides. There's no wasted text, though it could be slightly more front-loaded by immediately stating it retrieves consensus price targets for a given stock symbol.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain the response format, data structure, or any behavioral constraints. While it clearly states what data the tool provides, it lacks critical context needed for an agent to effectively use this tool without trial and error.

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 single parameter 'symbol' clearly documented as 'Stock symbol'. The description doesn't add any additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, which is acceptable given the high schema coverage, resulting in a baseline score of 3.

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 analysts' consensus price targets' with the FMP Price Target Consensus API, specifying it provides high, low, median, and consensus price targets for stocks. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on price target consensus data, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar tools like getPriceTargetSummary or getPriceTargetSummariesBulk.

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 any prerequisites, constraints, or suggest when to choose this over sibling tools like getPriceTargetSummary or getPriceTargetSummariesBulk, leaving the agent without usage context.

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