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 describes a search operation, implying read-only behavior, but does not address critical aspects such as rate limits, authentication requirements, pagination details (beyond parameters in the schema), error handling, or data freshness. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its operational traits.

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 purpose and scope. There is no wasted verbiage or redundancy, making it efficient. However, it could be slightly improved by structuring usage hints or distinguishing from siblings, but it remains well-sized for its content.

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 a search tool with 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., rate limits), output format, error scenarios, and differentiation from sibling tools. While the schema covers parameters, the overall context for effective agent use is insufficient, especially without annotations to fill gaps.

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, so the schema already documents all parameters (e.g., 'symbol', 'page', 'limit'). The description adds no additional semantic context beyond implying that searches can be filtered by 'company or symbol', which is partially covered by the schema. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description does not compensate with extra details like parameter interactions or examples.

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 insider trading activity by company or symbol' using a specific API. It specifies the target data ('trades made by corporate insiders, including executives and directors'), making the verb and resource explicit. However, it does not distinguish this tool from its sibling 'searchInsiderTradesByReportingName', which likely searches by a different parameter, leaving some ambiguity in sibling differentiation.

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 searching 'by company or symbol' but does not specify when to choose this over other search tools like 'searchInsiderTradesByReportingName' or 'getLatestInsiderTrading'. There are no explicit instructions on prerequisites, exclusions, or optimal use cases, relying solely on the implied context of the tool name.

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