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 states the tool 'retrieves' data, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify aspects like rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or response format. The mention of 'streamlined compliance and financial analysis process' is vague and doesn't add concrete behavioral traits beyond the basic purpose.

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: the first states the purpose and source, and the second adds context about use cases. It avoids unnecessary fluff and is front-loaded with the core functionality. However, it could be slightly more direct by omitting the promotional phrase 'Easily' without losing clarity.

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 a search tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., rate limits, error handling), output format, and differentiation from siblings. While the purpose is clear, the absence of structured data means the description should provide more context to fully guide an AI agent, which it doesn't do adequately.

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, documenting both parameters ('cik' and 'limit') clearly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or constraints. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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 Central Index Key (CIK) for publicly traded companies.' It specifies the resource (CIK) and the target (publicly traded companies), and mentions the FMP CIK API as the source. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'searchCompaniesByCIK' or 'getCIKList,' which might offer similar functionality, so it doesn't reach a perfect score.

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 general use cases ('SEC filings and regulatory documents,' 'compliance and financial analysis') but doesn't specify scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions. With many sibling tools available, such as 'searchCompaniesByCIK' or 'getCIKList,' the lack of comparative context leaves usage ambiguous.

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