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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it mentions accessing and analyzing data, it doesn't describe whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions might be required, rate limits, error conditions, or the format of returned data. 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 appropriately concise with two sentences that directly address the tool's function and value. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and avoids unnecessary fluff. However, the second sentence could be more tightly integrated with usage context.

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 segmentation, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the output looks like (e.g., data format, region granularity), error handling, or typical use cases. For a tool with three parameters and significant domain complexity, more contextual information 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all three parameters (symbol, period, structure). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema—it doesn't explain what 'flat' structure means, provide examples for symbol format, or clarify period implications. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 detailed revenue breakdowns by geographic region' and 'Analyze how different regions contribute to a company’s total revenue and identify key markets for growth.' It specifies the verb ('Access') and resource ('revenue breakdowns by geographic region'), making the purpose explicit. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'getRevenueProductSegmentation' beyond the geographic focus.

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 analyzing regional contributions and identifying growth markets, but doesn't specify prerequisites, constraints, or when to choose this over other revenue or segmentation tools. There's no mention of sibling tools or contextual usage scenarios.

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