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. It mentions the tool provides a 'complete list' and 'comprehensive overview', but lacks details on behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication requirements, response format, or potential errors. This is inadequate for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 purpose, and the second explains the utility. It is front-loaded with the core function, though the second sentence could be slightly more direct.

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 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides basic purpose and usage hints. However, it lacks details on output format, error handling, or integration with sibling tools, making it incomplete for full contextual understanding despite the simplicity.

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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description does not add parameter semantics, which is acceptable here. A baseline of 4 is appropriate as the schema fully covers the absence of parameters.

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 complete list of supported stock exchanges' using a specific API. It specifies the resource (stock exchanges) and the action (access/list), but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'getAllExchangeMarketHours' or 'searchExchangeVariants', which prevents a perfect score.

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 implies usage context by mentioning 'filter data by specific exchanges for further analysis', suggesting this tool is for identifying exchanges to use with other tools. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'getAvailableCountries' or 'getAvailableSectors', leaving some ambiguity.

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