Search Name
search_nameRead-onlyIdempotent
Company-name search.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | Yes | ||
| exchange | No |
Fmp
TDQS
C2.5/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, but the description adds no additional behavioral context. There is no mention of matching behavior, result limits, or how the exchange parameter affects results, so the description provides no value beyond the annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single phrase, technically concise, but it is under-specified for a tool with three parameters. This is not efficient brevity; it omits necessary information, making it closer to a tautology than a useful description.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has three parameters, no output schema, and minimal description, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain the purpose of limit/exchange or the expected output, leaving significant gaps for an agent to operate correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate, but it only vaguely implies 'query' is a company name. The 'limit' and 'exchange' parameters are not explained at all, leaving their semantics unclear.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Company-name search' clearly states the tool searches by company name, distinguishing it from search_symbol (likely ticker-based) and search_within. The verb 'search' and resource 'company name' are specific, though terse.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_symbol or search_within. The description does not mention exclusions or contexts where this tool is preferred, leaving the agent to infer usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
C2.5/5.0
Disambiguation2/5
Multiple tools overlap in purpose: quote/quote_short/historical_price/intraday for price data; balance_sheet/income_statement/cash_flow for financials; search_symbol/search_name/discover_tools for lookup; and a cluster of Pipeworx routers (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, validate_claim) with unclear boundaries. Agents will frequently select the wrong tool.
Naming Consistency3/5
All tool names use consistent snake_case, but naming conventions vary widely: noun phrases (balance_sheet, entity_profile), bare verbs (forget, subscribe), verb+noun (compare_entities, resolve_entity), and adjective+noun (historical_price, recent_alerts). No single pattern dominates, making it harder to guess tool names.
Tool Count2/5
55 tools is excessive for a server labeled 'Fmp'. The core financial data tools are perhaps 20-25, while the rest are unrelated: memory utilities, prediction market analyzers, web scraping, and meta-routing tools. This bloated set dilutes the server's purpose and burdens the agent with irrelevant options.
Completeness2/5
For the declared domain (FMP financials), the set covers the main statements but lacks tools like segment data, insider trades (listed as paid), or ownership details (also paid). Conversely, it includes many tools for prediction markets and general data retrieval that don't belong here, creating a mismatch between server name and actual capability.