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 'access detailed information to track and analyze crowdfunding activities,' which implies a read-only operation that returns data, but it lacks specifics on rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or output format. For a search tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its 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 purpose. There is no unnecessary information, and it efficiently communicates the core action and intent. However, it could be slightly improved by integrating usage context more seamlessly.

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 search returns (e.g., list of campaigns, detailed fields), how results are structured, or any limitations (e.g., pagination, sorting). For a search tool with no structured output information, the description should provide more context on the expected results and operational constraints.

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 'name' documented as 'Company name, campaign name, or platform to search for.' The description adds minimal value by repeating this in natural language ('by company name, campaign name, or platform') but does not provide additional semantics like search syntax, case sensitivity, or examples. With 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: 'Search for crowdfunding campaigns by company name, campaign name, or platform' using a specific API. It specifies the verb ('search'), resource ('crowdfunding campaigns'), and search criteria. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'getCrowdfundingCampaignsByCIK' or 'getLatestCrowdfundingCampaigns', which appear to be related but have different search methods.

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 search criteria but does not indicate when this tool is preferred over other crowdfunding-related tools (e.g., 'getCrowdfundingCampaignsByCIK' for CIK-based searches) or general search tools (e.g., 'searchCompaniesByName'). There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or context for usage.

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