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 'up-to-the-minute quotes' and 'Real-Time Commodities Quotes API', implying freshness and real-time data, but fails to describe critical behaviors such as rate limits, authentication requirements, error handling, or response format. For a tool with no 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 concise and front-loaded, with two sentences that efficiently convey the core functionality and examples. There is no wasted text, but it could be slightly more structured by explicitly separating purpose from usage context.

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 complexity (real-time data fetching), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain return values, error conditions, or behavioral constraints like rate limits, which are crucial for an API-based tool. This leaves significant gaps for the agent to operate effectively.

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 1 parameter with 100% description coverage ('short: Whether to use short format'), so the schema fully documents the parameter. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters, such as what 'short format' entails or examples of commodity inputs. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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: 'Get up-to-the-minute quotes for commodities' with the FMP Real-Time Commodities Quotes API, tracking latest prices, changes, and volumes for commodities like oil, gold, and agricultural products. It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('quotes for commodities'), and API source, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'getForexQuotes' or 'getCryptocurrencyQuotes'.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions tracking commodities but does not specify prerequisites, exclusions, or compare to similar tools like 'listCommodities' or other quote tools (e.g., for forex or crypto). This lack of contextual usage instructions leaves the agent without clear direction.

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