FMP MCP Server

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=true, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond this: it explains the tool returns 'momentum across timeframes, SMA positioning, valuation multiples, analyst consensus + upside, insider signal, and a heuristic quick-take signal,' which helps the agent understand the comprehensive nature of the response. No contradiction with annotations.

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 well-structured and front-loaded: the first sentence gives the core purpose, followed by consolidation benefits and detailed return components, then the parameter explanation. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 (consolidating multiple functions), rich annotations, and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete enough. It explains the tool's purpose, usage context, return components, and parameter, without needing to detail output values (handled by output schema). This provides sufficient context for an agent to use it effectively.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides the 'Args' section that explains the single parameter 'symbol' as a 'Stock ticker symbol (e.g. "AAPL")', adding clear semantics beyond the bare schema. This adequately documents the parameter, though it could mention format constraints (e.g., uppercase).

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 provides a 'quick comprehensive stock snapshot' with specific components listed (profile, price action, valuation, analyst consensus, insider signals, headlines). It explicitly distinguishes from siblings by stating it 'replaces the 4-tool chain (overview + price + news + consensus) with a single call,' making its purpose specific and differentiated.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives: it states it 'replaces the 4-tool chain' and names specific sibling tools (overview, price, news, consensus) that it consolidates. This gives clear context for choosing this tool over individual specialized tools.

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