fmp_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the tool's behavior (search by fragment or name) and mentions optional filters (exchange, limit). However, it doesn't describe what happens with no results, case sensitivity, or whether it returns multiple matches. The description is adequate but not rich in behavioral detail.

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 concise and well-structured. It starts with a one-sentence purpose, then lists parameters with clear examples. No wasted words; every sentence adds value.

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?

The tool is simple (3 params, 1 required) and has an output schema, so the description doesn't need to explain return values. It covers the essential usage. The only missing piece is a note on behavior when no match is found or when multiple matches exist, but given the simplicity and output schema, this is acceptable.

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 does: it explains 'query' as 'A symbol fragment ("AAP") or company name ("Apple")', 'limit' as 'Max results', and 'exchange' as 'Optional exchange filter, e.g. "NASDAQ"'. This adds meaning beyond the schema's bare type definitions. The only minor gap is not specifying the default behavior for limit (though schema has default 10) or exchange (default null).

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: 'Find a ticker symbol by symbol fragment or company name.' It uses a specific verb ('Find') and resource ('ticker symbol'), and distinguishes itself from siblings like fmp_quote or fmp_profile by focusing on symbol lookup rather than data retrieval.

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 when to use this tool: when you need to resolve a symbol fragment or company name to a ticker. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context of sibling tools (e.g., fmp_quote for quotes, fmp_profile for company info) makes the usage clear. A slight deduction for not explicitly mentioning alternatives.

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