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 retrieving information but does not specify aspects like rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or response format. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its operational 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 concise and front-loaded, efficiently stating the tool's function in two sentences without unnecessary details. However, it could be slightly more structured by separating usage context from purpose, but overall it earns its place with minimal waste.

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 for a tool that retrieves financial data. It does not cover behavioral traits, response format, or error handling, which are critical for effective use. With 100% schema coverage but no output information, it falls short of providing a fully contextual understanding.

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 the single parameter 'cusip' clearly documented. The description adds no additional semantic details beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema adequately covers parameter meaning without extra value from the description.

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 as searching and retrieving financial securities information by CUSIP number, specifying the API used (FMP CUSIP API) and key details like company name, stock symbol, and market capitalization. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on CUSIP-based search, but does not explicitly contrast with similar tools like searchISIN or searchSymbol, keeping it at a 4 rather than a 5.

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, such as other search tools in the sibling list (e.g., searchISIN, searchSymbol, searchCIK). It mentions retrieving information by CUSIP but lacks explicit context or exclusions, leaving usage unclear without further direction.

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