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 the tool 'provides detailed...ratios' and enables assessment, but doesn't mention whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication requirements, or what format the results come in. For a financial data 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 clearly state the tool's purpose and capabilities. There's no redundant information, though it could be slightly more specific about what makes this tool unique among the many financial analysis siblings.

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 analysis tool with 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the output looks like (ratios in what format?), doesn't mention data freshness or sources, and doesn't provide context about when this tool is most appropriate versus the many other financial analysis tools available.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so all parameters are documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's already in the schema (symbol, limit, period). It mentions analyzing 'a company's financial performance' which implies the symbol parameter, but provides no additional context about parameter usage or relationships.

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: 'Analyze a company's financial performance using the Financial Ratios API' with specific mention of 'profitability, liquidity, and efficiency ratios'. It distinguishes itself from siblings like getFinancialRatiosTTM or getRatiosTTMBulk by focusing on general ratio analysis rather than TTM-specific calculations, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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 what the API provides but doesn't specify scenarios where this tool is preferred over other financial analysis tools in the sibling list, nor does it mention prerequisites or constraints beyond what's in the schema.

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