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 efficiency and detailed insights but fails to disclose critical behavioral traits such as authentication needs, rate limits, response format, pagination, or error handling. For a data retrieval tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, stating the purpose in the first sentence and adding details in the second. It avoids redundancy and wastes no words, though it could be slightly more structured for clarity.

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 complexity of financial data retrieval, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on output format, error cases, rate limits, and authentication requirements, making it inadequate for reliable tool invocation in a production context.

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 adds value by explaining what the tool retrieves (TTM financial ratios covering profitability, liquidity, etc.), which compensates for the lack of parameters, earning a baseline score above 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 retrieves trailing twelve months (TTM) financial ratios for stocks, specifying the resource (financial ratios) and scope (TTM, based on recent financial reports). It distinguishes from siblings like getRatios (non-TTM) and getFinancialRatiosTTM (similar but not bulk), though the 'bulk' aspect could be more explicit.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like getRatios or getFinancialRatiosTTM is provided. The description implies efficiency for bulk retrieval but lacks context on prerequisites, limitations, or sibling tool comparisons, leaving usage unclear.

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