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 tool uses the 'FMP SEC Filings Company Search By Symbol API' and implies it's for finding information, but it doesn't describe response format, error handling, rate limits, authentication needs, or whether it's read-only or has side effects. 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 key feature. There is no wasted text, and it efficiently communicates the core purpose. However, it could be slightly improved by integrating usage hints, but as-is, it's well-structured and to the point.

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 financial data tools and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'company information and regulatory filings' includes, the response structure, or any behavioral traits. For a tool in a server with many siblings, more context is needed to ensure the agent can use it effectively without trial and error.

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 'symbol' documented as 'Stock symbol'. The description adds context by specifying 'stock ticker symbols' and linking to the API, but doesn't provide additional semantics like format examples or constraints beyond what the schema already states. Given the high schema coverage, a 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 and regulatory filings using a stock symbol' with the specific resource being 'company details' and the verb 'find'. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'searchCompaniesByName' or 'searchSymbol' by specifying the input is a stock symbol, but it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'getCompanyProfile' or 'getCompanySECProfile', which might provide similar information. This makes it clear but not fully differentiated from all alternatives.

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 'Quickly access essential company details based on stock ticker symbols', but does not specify scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions. With many sibling tools like 'getCompanyProfile' or 'searchCompaniesByName', the lack of comparative context leaves the agent without clear usage direction.

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