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 by specifying what the tool returns (segment percentages, growth identification, concentration risk flags), which goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent understand the output 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 a purpose statement, output details, and parameter explanation in three concise sentences. Every sentence adds value, and it's front-loaded with the core functionality, making it easy to parse without wasted words.

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 moderate complexity (single parameter, read-only operation) and the presence of annotations and an output schema, the description is largely complete. It explains the purpose, output behavior, and parameter, though it could benefit from more usage guidance relative to siblings to achieve full completeness.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by clearly explaining the single parameter 'symbol' as a stock ticker symbol with an example ('AAPL'). It adds meaning beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't detail format constraints like length or valid characters.

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 revenue breakdown') and resource ('by product/service and geographic region'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'financial_statements' or 'company_overview' which provide different financial data. It specifies the exact type of analysis performed, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 for analyzing revenue segmentation, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'financial_statements' or 'peer_comparison'. It doesn't mention prerequisites, exclusions, or specific scenarios where this tool is preferred over others in the sibling list.

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