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 API source (FMP Available Industries API) and the general benefit (filtering/categorization for research), but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication requirements, response format, or potential errors. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by context on usage. Every sentence adds value: the first defines the action and resource, the second explains the benefit. There is no wasted text, making it highly efficient and well-structured.

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 (0 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the purpose and implied usage, but lacks details on behavioral aspects like response format or limitations. For a simple list-fetching tool, this is acceptable but leaves room for improvement in transparency.

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, and schema description coverage is 100% (though the schema is empty). The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, so it appropriately focuses on the tool's purpose and usage. A baseline of 4 is applied as it compensates adequately for the lack of parameters by explaining what the tool does.

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 industries where stock symbols are available' using a specific API (FMP Available Industries API). It specifies the resource (industries) and the action (access/list), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'getAvailableCountries' or 'getAvailableSectors' beyond mentioning 'industries' 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 implies usage context: 'helps users filter and categorize companies based on their industry for more focused research and analysis.' This suggests when to use it (for industry-based filtering/categorization in research), but doesn't provide explicit alternatives or exclusions compared to sibling tools like 'getAllIndustryClassification' or 'searchIndustryClassification'.

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