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. It describes the tool as providing 'detailed revenue breakdowns' and 'insights,' which implies a read-only operation, but does not specify authentication requirements, rate limits, data freshness, or error handling. 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 concise and well-structured in two sentences, with the first stating the core function and the second highlighting key benefits. There is no wasted language, and it is front-loaded with the primary action. It could be slightly more direct but remains efficient.

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's moderate complexity (3 parameters, 100% schema coverage, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but incomplete. It explains the purpose and benefits but lacks behavioral details (e.g., data sources, update frequency) and usage guidelines. Without annotations or an output schema, more context on what the tool returns would be helpful for an agent 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%, so the schema fully documents the three parameters (symbol, period, structure) with descriptions and enums. The description does not add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining the 'flat' structure or providing examples. 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 product line' and 'Understand which products drive a company's earnings and get insights into the performance of individual product segments.' It specifies the verb ('access') and resource ('revenue breakdowns by product line'), but does not explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'getRevenueGeographicSegmentation' which appears to provide similar segmentation by geography rather than product.

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 general benefits ('understand which products drive earnings') but does not specify prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or compare it to other tools like 'getRevenueGeographicSegmentation' or financial statement tools in the sibling list. Usage is implied rather than explicitly stated.

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