fmp_peers

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It only says 'as identified by FMP,' but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, if it has rate limits, or what the output exactly represents. No behavioral details beyond the basic purpose are given.

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 a single short sentence, but it is under-specified rather than properly concise. It lacks essential context that should be present given the absence of annotations and schema descriptions. It is brief but not efficiently informative.

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?

For a tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description is minimal. It does not mention what the output contains beyond 'comparable companies,' nor does it clarify any edge cases or response structure. The completeness is inadequate given the lack of annotations and schema commentary.

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?

The only parameter is 'symbol' with zero schema description coverage. The description does not explain the expected format, such as whether it requires a ticker, exchange suffix, or other details. The tool name and parameter name provide some hint, but no additional semantic clarity is added.

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 states the tool returns comparable companies for a symbol, which is a specific verb+resource. It clearly identifies the primary function but does not explicitly distinguish it from other FMP data tools, such as quotes or profiles.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like fmp_profile or fmp_quote. The description gives no context about typical use cases, selection criteria, or prerequisites.

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