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 a list via an API but does not describe key behaviors such as whether it requires authentication, rate limits, data freshness, or error handling. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding operational constraints.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by additional context about filtering capabilities. It avoids redundancy and is efficiently structured, though the second sentence could be slightly more concise. Overall, it earns its place without waste.

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 simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but minimal. It explains what the tool does but lacks details on behavioral aspects like data format, potential errors, or integration context. For a straightforward list-access tool, it meets basic needs but does not provide a comprehensive understanding for an 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?

The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, meaning no parameters are documented in the schema. The description does not mention any parameters, which is appropriate since none exist. It adds no semantic value beyond the schema, but with zero parameters, a baseline score of 4 is warranted as there is nothing to compensate for.

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 a comprehensive list of countries where stock symbols are available' using the 'FMP Available Countries API'. It specifies the resource ('countries') and the action ('access a comprehensive list'), but does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like 'getAvailableExchanges' or 'getAvailableIndustries', which serve similar filtering purposes for different dimensions.

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 the API 'enables users to filter and analyze stock symbols based on the country of origin or the primary market', implying usage for country-based filtering. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'getAvailableExchanges' for exchange-based filtering) or any prerequisites. The context is clear but lacks comparative or exclusionary advice.

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