Retrieve a comprehensive list of stock market indexes across global exchanges using the FMP Stock Market Indexes List API. This API provides essential information such as the symbol, name, exchange, and currency for each index, helping analysts and investors keep track of various market benchmarks.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the underlying FMP API and the fields returned (symbol, name, exchange, currency) and notes global scope. However, it does not mention pagination, rate limits, response size, or whether the list is exhaustive. There is no contradiction with structured data.
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, with the first stating the action and the second adding field-level detail and a use case. It is efficient, though the second sentence's 'helping analysts and investors' phrase is slightly promotional and could be trimmed. No significant redundancy.
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?
No output schema exists, so the description should clarify the return shape. It lists 'symbol, name, exchange, currency' but uses 'such as', leaving the full response structure ambiguous. For a zero-parameter list tool, this is a moderate gap, especially regarding array/object formatting and any additional fields.
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 tool has zero parameters, making schema coverage trivially 100%. The description appropriately focuses on output fields rather than parameters, leaving no parameter semantics to clarify. Baseline of 4 applies for zero-parameter tools.
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 retrieves a comprehensive list of stock market indexes across global exchanges, using a specific verb ('Retrieve') and resource. It naturally distinguishes from sibling quote/historical tools by focusing on the list itself, even though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool over siblings like getIndexQuote, getAllIndexQuotes, or getHistoricalIndexFullChart. The phrase 'helping analysts and investors keep track' implies a general use case but lacks explicit alternatives, exclusions, or prerequisites.
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.