Financial Modeling Prep MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions using the 'FMP ADX API' but doesn't describe key behaviors: whether it's read-only (implied by 'calculate' but not stated), rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or what the output looks like (no output schema). For a tool with 5 parameters and no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it operates.

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 in two sentences: the first states the core purpose, and the second adds context on utility. There's no wasted verbiage, and it's front-loaded with the main action. However, it could be slightly more efficient by integrating the context into the first sentence.

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 complexity (financial indicator calculation with 5 parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain behavioral traits (e.g., data sources, limitations), usage scenarios, or output format. For a tool that likely returns numerical/trend data, more context is needed to guide effective use by an AI agent.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents all 5 parameters (symbol, periodLength, timeframe, from, to) with clear descriptions. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying historical data usage ('based on historical price data'), which is already covered by the schema's date parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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: 'Calculate the Average Directional Index (ADX) for a stock using the FMP ADX API.' It specifies the verb ('calculate'), resource ('ADX'), and target ('stock'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'getRSI' or 'getEMA' that calculate other indicators. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other trend analysis tools beyond mentioning ADX specifically.

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 minimal usage guidance, only stating it 'helps users analyze trend strength and direction based on historical price data.' It doesn't specify when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'getRSI' for momentum or 'getEMA' for trend smoothing), nor does it mention prerequisites or constraints like data availability or API limits. No explicit when/when-not instructions are provided.

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