FMP MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already indicate read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, and open-world behavior, covering safety and reliability. The description adds useful context by specifying the types of dividend data returned (e.g., yield, growth rates, ex-date) and mentions stock split history, which enhances understanding beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 front-loaded with key information in the first sentence, followed by details in a bullet-like format, and ends with parameter explanation. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and well-structured for quick comprehension.

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 simple parameter schema, rich annotations, and presence of an output schema, the description is largely complete. It clearly states what data is returned, though it could briefly hint at output structure or limitations. The tool's complexity is low, so the description adequately covers its scope.

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 has 0% description coverage, but the description compensates by explaining the 'symbol' parameter as a stock ticker with an example ('AAPL'), adding meaningful semantics. With only one parameter, this is sufficient to clarify usage, though it could note format constraints like uppercase or validity.

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 specific action ('Get') and resources ('dividend history, yield, growth rates, and stock split history'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'price_history' or 'financial_statements' that focus on different financial data. It provides a comprehensive list of what information is retrieved, making the purpose explicit and distinct.

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 does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lists what data is returned but offers no context on scenarios where dividend info is preferred over other tools like 'company_overview' or 'stock_brief', nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions for usage.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.