Track real-time trading activity occurring after regular market hours with the FMP Aftermarket Trade API. Access key details such as trade prices, sizes, and timestamps for trades executed during the post-market session.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| symbol | Yes | Stock symbol |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits fully. It mentions 'real-time' and a few data fields but does not clarify return format (single trade vs list), ordering, time boundaries, or rate limits. This is only slightly more informative than the tool name.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose and followed by specific examples of returned data. Every word contributes; no redundancy or fluff.
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?
The tool has minimal complexity (one parameter, no output schema). The description covers the core purpose and data elements but omits details about the response structure and any limitations, which would be helpful given the absence of an output schema.
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% for the single 'symbol' parameter, which is documented as 'Stock symbol'. The description adds no extra detail about symbol format or usage, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 tracks real-time aftermarket trading activity and lists specific data points (prices, sizes, timestamps). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like getAftermarketQuote by focusing on trades rather than quotes, and the singular 'Trade' in the name implies a per-symbol service.
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 such as getAftermarketQuote or getBatchAftermarketTrade. It implies usage for aftermarket trades but does not state exclusions, prerequisites, or selection criteria, leaving the agent without decision context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.