FMP MCP Server

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it explains merging of news sources, deduplication by title similarity, sorting by date, and event type flagging. This clarifies the tool's processing behavior, though it doesn't detail rate limits or authentication needs.

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 the core purpose, followed by behavioral details and parameter explanations in a structured format. Every sentence adds value: the first states the goal, the second describes processing steps, and the third defines parameters with examples. No wasted words or redundancy.

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 (2 parameters, processing logic) and rich annotations, the description is mostly complete. It explains the tool's behavior and parameters well, and since an output schema exists, return values need not be detailed. However, it lacks explicit usage guidelines compared to siblings, which is a minor gap.

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 carries full burden. It clearly explains both parameters: 'symbol' as the stock ticker with an example ('AAPL'), and 'limit' as the max items with a default value (20). This adds essential meaning beyond the bare schema, though it could specify format constraints like uppercase or valid ticker symbols.

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 with specific verbs ('Get recent news articles and press releases for a stock') and distinguishes it from siblings by focusing on news aggregation rather than financial metrics, earnings, or other data types. It explicitly mentions merging, deduplication, sorting, and event flagging, which differentiates it from simple news retrieval tools.

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 retrieving news about a specific stock, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'market_overview' or 'stock_brief'. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer context from the tool's name and description alone.

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