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 full burden. It mentions the API returns 'essential details like CIK number, entity information, and reporting file number' which gives some output context, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, pagination, or whether this is a read-only operation. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.

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 reasonably concise with two sentences that directly address the tool's function and what it returns. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and avoids unnecessary fluff. However, the second sentence could be more tightly integrated with the first for better flow.

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 search, no annotations, no output schema, and many sibling tools, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain the relationship to other disclosure tools (getFundDisclosure, getFundDisclosureDates), doesn't specify what types of disclosures are returned (prospectuses, annual reports, etc.), and provides minimal behavioral context. The agent would struggle to use this tool 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% with one parameter ('name') clearly documented in the schema. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by specifying it's for 'mutual fund and ETF disclosures' rather than general entities, but doesn't provide format examples, search semantics (partial/fuzzy matching), or character limits. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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: searching for mutual fund and ETF disclosures by name using a specific API. It specifies the resource (mutual fund and ETF disclosures) and the action (search by name). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'searchCompaniesByName' or 'searchName', which could cause confusion about when to use this specific disclosure search versus general name searches.

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. With many sibling search tools (searchCompaniesByName, searchCIK, searchSymbol, etc.), there's no indication whether this is for regulatory filings, investor documents, or how it differs from general company searches. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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