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 states the tool 'provides essential data' but lacks details on behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication requirements, pagination, error handling, or response format. The description is too vague for a read operation with no annotation coverage.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence and adds context in the second. It avoids unnecessary details but could be slightly more concise by removing marketing phrases like 'Stay informed' and 'helping you track.'

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the return data looks like (e.g., list format, fields beyond date and ratio), potential limitations, or how to handle the date range parameters effectively. For a tool with two parameters and no structured output documentation, this is inadequate.

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 100% description coverage, with parameters 'from' and 'to' clearly documented as date ranges. The description does not add any parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline score of 3.

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: 'provides essential data on upcoming stock splits across multiple companies, including the split date and ratio.' It specifies the verb ('provides'), resource ('stock splits'), and scope ('upcoming'), but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'getStockSplits' (which likely provides historical data).

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 mentions 'helping you track changes in share structures before they occur,' which implies usage for monitoring upcoming events. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'getStockSplits' for historical data), prerequisites, or exclusions.

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