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 Sectors API) and the tool's function, but lacks details on behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication requirements, error handling, or response format. The description does not disclose any constraints or operational characteristics, which is a significant gap 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 sentence states the tool's purpose and API source, and the second explains its utility. There is no wasted text, and it is front-loaded with the core function. However, it could be slightly more direct, but overall it is efficient.

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 annotations, no output schema), the description is adequate but not complete. It explains what the tool does and its use case, but lacks details on behavioral aspects like rate limits or response structure. For a tool with no structured data, the description should provide more context to fully guide an agent, but it meets the minimum viable standard.

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% schema description coverage, meaning no parameters are documented in the schema. The description does not add parameter details, which is appropriate since there are no parameters. According to the rules, 0 parameters warrants a baseline score of 4, as the description need not compensate for missing parameter information.

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 industry sectors' using a specific API (FMP Available Sectors API). It specifies the resource (industry sectors) and the action (access/list), distinguishing it from siblings like getAvailableCountries or getAvailableIndustries by focusing on sectors. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from getSectorPerformanceSnapshot or getSectorPESnapshot, which are related but distinct.

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 categorize and filter companies based on their respective sectors, enabling deeper analysis and more focused queries.' This suggests when to use it—for sector-based categorization and filtering—but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives. For example, it doesn't compare to getAvailableIndustries or other sector-related tools, leaving usage guidelines somewhat inferred rather than explicit.

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