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 carries full burden. It mentions retrieving data 'quickly' and for 'all listed symbols', but lacks details on rate limits, authentication needs, data freshness, pagination, or error handling. For a bulk API with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient behavioral disclosure.

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 tool's scope and value. It's front-loaded with the core functionality and avoids unnecessary details. However, it could be slightly more structured by explicitly stating it's a no-parameter bulk endpoint.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a bulk operation that likely returns complex data, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain the return format (e.g., structure of price target summaries), timeframes covered, or handling of large datasets. For a bulk tool with rich sibling context, more completeness 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 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, focusing on the tool's purpose instead. Baseline is 4 for zero-parameter tools when schema coverage is complete.

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 price target data for all listed symbols across multiple timeframes, providing a comprehensive overview. It specifies the resource (price targets) and verb (retrieve), but doesn't explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like 'getPriceTargetSummary' or 'getPriceTargetConsensus' beyond the 'Bulk' aspect.

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 mentions this helps investors and analysts compare prices to targets, implying usage context, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'getPriceTargetSummary' (non-bulk) or 'getPriceTargetConsensus'. No prerequisites, exclusions, or clear alternatives are stated.

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