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 mentions accessing 'detailed forecasts, stock prices, analyst insights, and direct links to news sources,' which adds some context about return content. However, it doesn't cover critical behaviors like pagination (implied by page/limit parameters), rate limits, authentication needs, or whether this is a read-only operation. The description is insufficient for a tool with pagination parameters and no annotation coverage.

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 two sentences that efficiently convey the core purpose and key features without unnecessary fluff. It's front-loaded with the main function and follows with additional details. However, the second sentence could be slightly more concise by integrating the features more tightly.

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 has 2 parameters with full schema coverage but no annotations and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It outlines what the tool does and hints at return content (forecasts, prices, insights, links), but it lacks details on output structure, error handling, or behavioral constraints like rate limits. For a data retrieval tool with pagination, this leaves gaps in understanding how to use it effectively.

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%, with both parameters (page and limit) well-documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining how pagination works or typical use cases for these parameters. This meets the baseline score of 3 when schema coverage is high.

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 retrieves 'most recent analyst price target updates for all stock symbols' using a specific API, which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'getPriceTargetNews' or 'getPriceTargetSummary', which appear to be related price target tools.

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 like 'getPriceTargetNews' or 'getPriceTargetSummary' from the sibling list. It mentions staying updated with recent analyst updates but gives no context about prerequisites, limitations, or comparative use cases.

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