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 accessing 'essential company details and filings' but doesn't specify what those details include, the response format, rate limits, authentication requirements, or error handling. 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, consisting of two sentences that directly state the tool's function and scope. There's no unnecessary verbiage, and each sentence contributes to understanding the tool's purpose. However, it could be slightly more structured by explicitly separating purpose from context.

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 effective tool use. It doesn't explain what 'company details and filings' are returned, how results are formatted, or any limitations (e.g., data freshness, API constraints). For a search tool with no structured output documentation, this leaves the agent guessing about the tool's capabilities and results.

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 'cik' parameter documented as 'Central Index Key (CIK).' The description adds minimal value beyond this, only reiterating that it uses a 'CIK number' without explaining format, validation, or examples. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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: 'find company information using a CIK' and specifies it accesses 'essential company details and filings linked to a specific CIK number.' It uses specific verbs ('find,' 'access') and identifies the resource (company information). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'searchCIK' or 'getCompanyProfileByCIK,' which appear to serve similar purposes.

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. It mentions the API source ('FMP SEC Filings Company Search By CIK API') but doesn't specify use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions. With many sibling tools available (e.g., 'searchCIK,' 'getCompanyProfileByCIK'), the lack of comparative context leaves the agent without clear selection criteria.

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