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 'real-time' data and the API source (FMP), but does not disclose behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication needs, data freshness, or error handling. The description adds some context but leaves significant gaps for a data retrieval tool.

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 with the core purpose in the first sentence and adds useful context in the second. Both sentences earn their place by specifying the API, data types, and multi-stock scope without any wasted words.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a simple single-parameter input, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose and scope. However, it lacks details on return values (e.g., data structure), error cases, or operational limits, which are important for a real-time data tool.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the 'symbols' parameter as a comma-separated list. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 with specific verbs ('Retrieve', 'Track') and resources ('real-time aftermarket trading data for multiple stocks'), explicitly distinguishing it from siblings like getAftermarketTrade (single stock) and getBatchAftermarketQuote (quotes vs. trades).

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 post-market data across multiple companies, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like getAftermarketTrade (single stock) or getBatchQuotes (general quotes). It provides clear context but lacks explicit exclusions or named alternatives.

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