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. It mentions the API source (FMP Search Press Releases API) and search capability, but lacks details on behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or response format. For a search 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, consisting of two clear sentences that state the tool's purpose and basic usage. There is no wasted text, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating purpose from guidance).

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 5 parameters with full schema coverage but no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the purpose but lacks behavioral context, usage guidelines, and output details. For a search tool with moderate complexity, it should provide more completeness, such as explaining result formats or limitations.

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%, so the schema fully documents all 5 parameters (symbols, from, to, page, limit). The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema, only implying that 'symbols' can include company names, which slightly clarifies the parameter but doesn't provide additional syntax or format details. Baseline 3 is appropriate as 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: 'Search for company press releases' with the FMP Search Press Releases API, specifying the resource (press releases) and action (search). It distinguishes from general search tools by focusing on press releases, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling 'getPressReleases' (which appears to be a retrieval tool).

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 minimal guidance: it mentions searching by 'stock symbol or company name,' but offers no explicit when-to-use advice, prerequisites, or alternatives. It doesn't clarify when to use this versus 'getPressReleases' or other search tools, leaving usage context implied rather than stated.

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