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 must fully disclose behavioral traits. It states the tool provides 'real-time quotes' and allows tracking 'across multiple indexes in a single request', which hints at read-only, non-destructive behavior. However, it lacks details on rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or the format of returned data, leaving significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves operationally.

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, with the first stating the core functionality and the second explaining the benefit ('broad view of the financial markets'). There is no unnecessary repetition or fluff, and the information is front-loaded effectively, though it could be slightly more direct by explicitly naming the tool's action earlier.

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 low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is moderately complete. It covers the purpose and scope but lacks details on behavioral aspects like data format, error cases, or usage constraints. Without annotations or an output schema, the description should do more to explain what the tool returns and any operational limits, but it meets a basic threshold for such a simple tool.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for its single parameter ('short'), so the schema already documents it fully. The description does not add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or implications of using the 'short' parameter. With high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't need to given the schema's completeness.

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: to provide real-time quotes for stock indexes, tracking market performance across multiple indexes in a single request. It specifies the resource ('stock indexes') and verb ('provides real-time quotes'), but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'getIndexQuotes' or 'getIndexQuote', which appear to serve similar but potentially narrower functions.

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 mentions that this tool gives a 'broad view of the financial markets' and covers 'a wide range of stock indexes', implying it's for comprehensive market tracking. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'getIndexQuotes' or 'getBatchQuotes', nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions for its use.

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