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 must fully disclose behavioral traits. It states the tool extracts data from SEC filings but fails to mention critical details like rate limits, authentication requirements, error handling, or the format of returned data (since there's no output schema). The description is too high-level, lacking operational context needed for safe and effective use.

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, front-loading the core purpose ('extract detailed data from SEC filings') and following with benefits. There's no wasted text, but it could be slightly more informative without losing efficiency, such as by hinting at output types or 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 tool's complexity (extracting data from SEC filings), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what data is returned, how errors are handled, or any behavioral nuances (e.g., data freshness, limits). For a tool with three required parameters and no structured output info, more detail is needed to guide the agent 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%, with clear parameter descriptions (CIK number, year, quarter). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, such as format examples (e.g., CIK as 10-digit string) or constraints (e.g., year ranges). Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, but the description doesn't enhance understanding.

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: 'extract detailed data directly from official SEC filings' with specific examples like 'company shares, security details, and filing links.' It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on SEC filing extraction, unlike tools for calculations, quotes, or other data types. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar tools like 'getFilingExtractAnalyticsByHolder' or 'getFilingsByCIK,' which slightly reduces specificity.

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 ('easier to analyze corporate disclosures') but lacks explicit instructions on context, prerequisites, or comparisons to sibling tools (e.g., 'getFilingsByCIK' for raw filings vs. this for extracted data). This leaves the agent without clear usage direction.

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