Calculate the Williams %R for a stock using the FMP Williams %R API. This tool helps users analyze overbought/oversold conditions and potential reversal signals based on historical price data.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to | No | End date (YYYY-MM-DD) | |
| from | No | Start date (YYYY-MM-DD) | |
| symbol | Yes | Stock symbol | |
| timeframe | Yes | Timeframe (1min, 5min, 15min, 30min, 1hour, 4hour, 1day) | |
| periodLength | Yes | Period length for the indicator |
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 of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention output format, authentication needs, rate limits, or any limitations. It only says it uses historical price data, which is limited context.
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 with no wasted words. The main purpose is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds useful context without 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?
Given the lack of an output schema and annotations, the description should clarify what the tool returns, which it does not. It also does not explain parameter optionality (from/to are optional) or any data range constraints. The purpose is clear, but completeness is diminished by missing return-value and parameter-behavior details.
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%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, only vaguely referencing historical price data. It does not explain relationships between parameters or provide additional syntax guidance.
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 it calculates the Williams %R for a stock using the FMP API, with a specific verb and resource. It uniquely distinguishes this tool from siblings by naming the indicator and explains its purpose (analyzing overbought/oversold conditions and reversal signals).
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 implies when to use the tool by mentioning analysis of overbought/oversold conditions and reversal signals. It provides clear context for typical use cases, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it.
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.