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 of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'real-time' and 'streamlined request', but fails to disclose critical traits such as rate limits, authentication requirements, data freshness, error handling, or response format. For a real-time data tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 appropriately sized with two sentences that efficiently convey the tool's purpose and key features. It is front-loaded with the main action and resource, though the second sentence could be slightly more concise by integrating the 'quick snapshot' concept into the first sentence.

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 complexity of a real-time financial data tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks essential context such as response structure, data fields beyond a vague mention of 'key stock data', error conditions, and usage limitations, making it inadequate for reliable agent invocation.

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 100% description coverage, with the 'symbols' parameter fully documented as a comma-separated list of stock symbols. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints, so it meets the baseline score of 3 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 ('access', 'get') and resources ('real-time, short-form quotes for multiple stocks'), and distinguishes it from siblings by mentioning 'short-form' and 'quick snapshot', differentiating from tools like getBatchQuotes or getQuoteShort that might offer different quote formats or single-stock focus.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like getBatchQuotes, getQuoteShort, or getBatchAftermarketQuote. It mentions 'quick snapshot' but doesn't specify scenarios where this is preferred over more detailed or aftermarket data, leaving usage context implied at best.

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