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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'accesses' data via an API, implying a read-only operation, but does not clarify if it's safe, requires authentication, has rate limits, or describes pagination behavior (implied by 'page' and 'limit' parameters). For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its operational traits.

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 front-loaded, stating the core purpose in the first sentence and adding context in the second. Both sentences earn their place by specifying the data retrieved and its use case. There is no redundant information, making it efficient, though it could be slightly more structured with bullet points for clarity.

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 has no annotations, no output schema, and 2 parameters with full schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral aspects like safety, rate limits, or response format, which are critical for a data retrieval tool. While the purpose is clear, the absence of output information and minimal behavioral context makes it inadequate for full understanding.

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, with 'page' and 'limit' clearly documented. The description does not add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining how pagination works or default values. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description neither compensates nor detracts.

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: 'Access comprehensive shares float data for all available companies' with the FMP All Shares Float API, specifying it retrieves 'free float, float shares, and outstanding shares' to 'analyze liquidity'. It distinguishes from sibling 'getShareFloat' by emphasizing 'all available companies' versus a single company focus, though it doesn't explicitly name the sibling. The verb 'access' and resource 'shares float data' are specific, making the purpose 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?

The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions analyzing 'liquidity across a wide range of companies', which implies a broad-scope use case, but does not specify prerequisites, exclusions, or name sibling tools like 'getShareFloat' for single-company data. Without such context, an agent might struggle to choose between this and similar tools.

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