fmp_search

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

No annotations provided; description states it returns matching companies with basic info. It misses details like rate limits, pagination behavior, or what happens with no results, but the core behavior is described.

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?

Three brief, front-loaded sentences with zero waste. Every sentence provides information about purpose, output, or convenience.

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 simple search functionality, rich schema (parameter descriptions), and output schema presence, the description covers input, output, and purpose adequately. Lacks only some behavioral details for 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds a high-level note about search input (name/ticker) but does not elaborate on parameter values beyond what the schema provides.

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?

Clearly states it searches for companies by name or ticker and returns symbols, names, and exchange info. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like fmp_fetch or fmp_profile, though the intent is clear.

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?

Labels itself as a 'convenience wrapper' but offers no guidance on when to use this versus alternatives, no exclusion criteria, and no prerequisites. The agent receives little context for tool selection.

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