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 useful context about the dual functionality (simple lookup vs. filtered screening) and default limit behavior, but doesn't disclose rate limits, authentication needs, or pagination details beyond the limit parameter.

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 perfectly structured and front-loaded: first sentence states core purpose, second explains usage patterns, then a clean Args section documents all parameters. Every sentence earns its place with zero 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 (6 parameters, screening functionality), rich annotations, and presence of an output schema, the description is nearly complete. It explains all parameters and usage patterns well. The only minor gap is not mentioning what type of results are returned, but the output schema handles that.

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 carries full burden for parameter documentation. It successfully explains all 6 parameters with clear semantics: query purpose, exchange/sector filtering examples, market cap range meaning, and limit default. The only minor gap is not specifying units for market cap (implied as dollars).

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 ('find stocks by name/ticker' and 'screen by criteria') and identifies the resource ('stocks'). It distinguishes this search/screening tool from sibling tools like 'price_history', 'financial_statements', or 'stock_news' which serve different analytical purposes.

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 clear context for when to use different parameter combinations ('For simple name/ticker lookup, just pass query. For filtered screening, use the optional parameters'). However, it doesn't explicitly mention when NOT to use this tool or name specific alternative tools from the sibling list for different types of stock data needs.

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