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 mentions the tool retrieves P/E ratios and supports comparison, but doesn't disclose critical behaviors: whether this is a read-only operation (implied but not stated), what the output format looks like (no output schema), rate limits, authentication requirements, or error handling. For a data retrieval tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant 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 efficiently state the tool's purpose and suggested usage. It's front-loaded with the core functionality ('Retrieve...P/E ratios'), and the second sentence adds value by explaining the comparative analysis use case without redundancy. No wasted words, though it could be slightly more structured with explicit parameter guidance.

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, no nested objects) and 100% schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it should do more to explain behavioral aspects like output format, error conditions, or usage constraints. The description covers the 'what' and hints at the 'why', but lacks completeness on operational details.

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 already documents all three parameters (date, exchange, sector) with their types and basic descriptions. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema—it doesn't explain how parameters interact (e.g., if sector filters results) or provide examples beyond the schema's 'e.g.' hints. 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: 'Retrieve the price-to-earnings (P/E) ratios for various sectors' (specific verb+resource). It distinguishes from some siblings like 'getHistoricalSectorPE' by focusing on current snapshot data rather than historical trends, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all similar tools like 'getIndustryPESnapshot' or 'getSectorPerformanceSnapshot'.

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 implies usage context: 'Compare valuation levels across sectors to better understand market valuations' suggests this tool is for comparative sector analysis. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like 'getHistoricalSectorPE' for trend analysis or 'getSectorPerformanceSnapshot' for performance metrics, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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