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 retrieving 'detailed information' and 'links to official SEC filings', which hints at output content, but lacks critical details such as rate limits, authentication requirements, error handling, or pagination. For a search tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral 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 appropriately concise with two sentences that efficiently state the tool's purpose and key retrieved data. It is front-loaded with the main action and avoids unnecessary details. However, it could be slightly more structured by explicitly separating purpose from output details, but overall it earns its place without waste.

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 tool's moderate complexity (search with one parameter), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers what the tool does and hints at output content but lacks completeness in behavioral aspects like error handling or usage context. It meets the baseline for a simple search tool but does not fully address gaps from missing structured data.

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 'name' parameter documented as 'Company name to search for'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond this, such as search syntax, case sensitivity, or partial matching. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, as the description does not compensate but also does not detract.

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 specific mergers and acquisitions data' with the FMP API, retrieving detailed M&A information including companies, dates, and SEC filings. It specifies the verb ('Search'), resource ('mergers and acquisitions data'), and scope ('detailed information'), but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'getLatestMergersAcquisitions' or other search tools, keeping it at a 4 rather than a 5.

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 'specific' data but does not clarify what makes it specific compared to siblings like 'getLatestMergersAcquisitions' or general search tools. There are no explicit when/when-not instructions or named alternatives, resulting in minimal usage guidance.

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