FMP MCP Server

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations by specifying what calculations are performed (yield curve spread, rotation signal, breadth signal, regime classification) and what data elements are included. While annotations cover safety (readOnly, non-destructive) and idempotency, the description provides operational details about the tool's aggregation and computation behavior.

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 efficiently structured with two sentences: the first lists the comprehensive data elements included, and the second explains the aggregation and calculations performed. Every phrase adds value without redundancy, and the information is front-loaded with the most important details.

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's complexity (aggregating multiple data sources with calculations), the description provides complete context about what the tool does, what it includes, and what it computes. With annotations covering safety aspects and an output schema presumably detailing the return structure, the description focuses appropriately on the tool's purpose and behavior.

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?

With zero parameters and 100% schema description coverage, the baseline would be 4. The description appropriately explains that this tool requires no inputs and provides a comprehensive market snapshot, which aligns perfectly with the empty input schema.

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 explicitly states the tool's purpose: to provide a comprehensive market environment snapshot combining multiple data elements (rates, yield curve, sector rotation, breadth, movers, economic calendar). It clearly distinguishes from siblings by focusing on aggregated market context rather than specific components like treasury_rates or economic_calendar individually.

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 usage context by stating it 'combines' multiple data sources into 'a single environment snapshot,' suggesting this tool should be used when needing holistic market context rather than isolated data points. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among the sibling tools.

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