Access precise intraday stock price and volume data with the FMP Interval Stock Chart API. Retrieve real-time or historical stock data in intervals, including key information such as open, high, low, and close prices, and trading volume for each minute.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to | No | End date (YYYY-MM-DD) | |
| from | No | Start date (YYYY-MM-DD) | |
| symbol | Yes | Stock symbol | |
| interval | Yes | Time interval |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description notes real-time or historical data and lists OHLCV fields, but it omits important behavioral details such as data range limits, timezone, business-day handling, and response ordering. The 'for each minute' claim is misleading given the interval enum includes up to 4-hour bars, and no annotations exist to clarify safety or side effects.
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 brief but contains redundancy ('Access precise intraday stock price and volume data' vs 'Retrieve real-time or historical stock data in intervals') and an inaccurate detail ('for each minute') that could mislead. The two sentences could be tightened.
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 has no output schema and no annotations, the description does not adequately explain return format, data ordering, or limitations. With a parameter count of 4 and numerous sibling competitors, more contextual detail is needed for reliable tool selection and invocation.
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 already covers all four parameters with descriptions and an enum for interval (100% coverage). The description adds minimal extra value beyond mentioning 'intervals' and implying range usage through from/to, but it doesn't clarify default behavior when from/to are omitted.
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 intraday stock price and volume data with OHLCV fields, using a specific API. However, it does not differentiate from sibling chart tools like getFullChart or getUnadjustedChart, and the phrase 'for each minute' inaccurately suggests only 1-minute intervals.
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 versus alternatives such as getFullChart, getLightChart, or other interval-specific tools. There are no explicit 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.