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. It mentions retrieving 'a comprehensive list' and enabling comparison, but lacks details on behavioral traits such as rate limits, data freshness, authentication requirements, error handling, or output format. The description is vague about what 'comprehensive' entails and how peers are determined, leaving significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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 two sentences and front-loaded with the main purpose, but includes some redundant phrasing (e.g., 'By accessing this data, you can easily compare...' could be more direct). It avoids excessive length but could be tighter; for example, the second sentence elaborates on use cases without adding critical information beyond the first.

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 retrieving peer data for all stocks, the description is incomplete. No annotations or output schema are provided, and the description lacks details on data scope (e.g., time frame, industry criteria), performance implications, or error cases. It does not compensate for the absence of structured data, making it inadequate for informed tool selection.

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 parameters need documentation. The description does not add parameter details, which is appropriate here. It focuses on the tool's purpose without unnecessary parameter explanation, aligning with the baseline for zero parameters.

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 a comprehensive list of peer companies for all stocks in the database' and 'compare a stock’s performance with its closest competitors or similar companies within the same industry or sector.' It specifies the verb ('retrieve') and resource ('peer companies for all stocks'), but does not explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'getStockPeers' (which likely retrieves peers for a single stock), leaving some ambiguity.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions the purpose but does not specify scenarios, prerequisites, or compare it to sibling tools like 'getStockPeers' (likely for single stocks) or other bulk tools in the list. Usage is implied through the term 'bulk,' but no clear when/when-not instructions are given.

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