Retrieve a list of industries with available stock symbols to filter and categorize companies for focused financial research and analysis.
Access a comprehensive list of industries where stock symbols are available using the FMP Available Industries API. This API helps users filter and categorize companies based on their industry for more focused research and analysis.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.9.0Input schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"v1.0.0Input schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -falseDoes the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the list is comprehensive and tied to the FMP Available Industries API, but it does not describe response shape, caching, rate limits, or any other behavioral detail beyond the annotations.
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 front-loaded and only two sentences long. The second sentence is slightly promotional ('for more focused research and analysis') and could be trimmed, but it does not obscure the main point.
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 zero parameters and rich annotations, the definition is mostly complete for invocation. However, with many sibling list tools and no output schema, the description does not clarify what the returned industry list actually contains or how it differs from other industry-related list endpoints.
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 zero input parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to document. The schema coverage is 100%, and the description appropriately adds no unnecessary parameter detail.
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?
States a specific action and resource: accessing a comprehensive list of industries where stock symbols are available. It is clear what the tool returns, but it does not distinguish this list from sibling tools such as getAvailableSectors, getAvailableCountries, or getIndustryClassificationList.
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 for filtering and categorizing companies by industry, which gives some context for when to use it. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over the many sibling industry, sector, and classification list tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.