Stay informed about the latest stock symbol changes with the FMP Stock Symbol Changes API. Track changes due to mergers, acquisitions, stock splits, and name changes to ensure accurate trading and analysis.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Optional limit on number of results (default: 100) | |
| invalid | No | Optional filter for invalid symbols (default: false) |
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 full burden. It discloses the types of changes covered but does not explain the return format, filtering behavior, pagination, or any limitations. With no output schema, this is a significant gap for an agent trying to invoke and interpret the tool.
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 two sentences, clearly structured and front-loaded with the key action. The phrasing 'to ensure accurate trading and analysis' is slightly promotional, but it does not add significant bloat.
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?
Without annotations or an output schema, the description should provide more context about the response data and how it differs from related tools. It does not describe what fields are returned or how to interpret the results, leaving the tool under-specified for an agent.
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 both parameters (limit and invalid), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning to the parameters, and the 'invalid' parameter remains ambiguous despite the schema description.
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 stock symbol changes and lists common causes (mergers, acquisitions, splits, name changes). It is specific about the resource and implies a tracking/fetching action, but it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like getStockSplits or getLatestMergersAcquisitions.
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 intended use case is implied: 'stay informed about the latest stock symbol changes' for trading/analysis. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites mentioned.
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.