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 the API source ('FMP SEC Filings By Name API') and implies a search operation, but fails to describe key traits such as rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or the format of returned data. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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, with two sentences that directly state the tool's function and utility. There is no unnecessary information or redundancy. However, it could be slightly improved by integrating usage hints or behavioral details without sacrificing brevity, but it remains efficient and well-structured.

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 does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., filing types, data structure), potential limitations, or error conditions. For a search tool with no structured output information, the description should provide more context to guide the agent in interpreting 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 'company' parameter documented as 'Company name or partial name'. The description adds no additional semantic context beyond this, such as examples, formatting rules, or search behavior details. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema handles the parameter documentation adequately.

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: 'Search for SEC filings by company or entity name using the FMP SEC Filings By Name API.' It specifies the verb ('Search'), resource ('SEC filings'), and method ('by company or entity name'), which is specific and actionable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'searchName' or 'searchCompaniesBySymbol', which may have overlapping functions, so it misses full sibling distinction.

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 retrieving filings 'based on its name' but does not specify contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions. With many sibling tools like 'searchName' and 'searchCompaniesBySymbol' that might serve similar purposes, the lack of comparative usage advice leaves the agent without clear direction for tool selection.

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