Easily find the ticker symbol of any stock with the FMP Stock Symbol Search API. Search by company name or symbol across multiple global markets.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Optional limit on number of results (default: 50) | |
| query | Yes | The search query to find stock symbols | |
| exchange | No | Optional exchange filter (e.g., NASDAQ, NYSE) |
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 only says 'easily find' and describes search scope; it does not mention match behavior, result format, pagination, potential multiple matches, or API quirks like case sensitivity. This is a significant gap for a search 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, front-loaded with the key action and resource, and contains no filler or repetition. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and scope.
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 description gives adequate high-level context for a simple lookup tool, but without an output schema it does not explain what the API returns (e.g., a list of matching ticker symbols) or mention the default limit of 50. It is sufficient but has clear gaps in behavioral coverage.
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 covers all three parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal extra meaning by framing query as company name or symbol and exchange as a global market filter, but does not provide additional syntax or usage details.
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's purpose: to find the ticker symbol of any stock, searchable by company name or symbol across global markets. This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools that search by CIK, CUSIP, ISIN, or company profiles.
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 clear context for when to use the tool (when you need a stock's ticker symbol) and mentions the search modes (company name or symbol) and global scope. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the use case is evident.
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.