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 full burden. It states the tool 'retrieves' data, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, response format, pagination, or potential data freshness. The description is promotional ('Easily retrieve', 'helping you explore') rather than informative about actual behavior.

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 two sentences but includes promotional language ('Easily retrieve', 'helping you explore') that doesn't add operational value. It's front-loaded with the core purpose but could be more concise by removing marketing phrases. The structure is clear but not optimally 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 output schema) and lack of annotations, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the output contains (e.g., symbol list format, fields included) or behavioral constraints. For a data retrieval tool with many siblings, more context is needed to guide effective use.

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 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description correctly doesn't mention any parameters, which is appropriate. It adds value by explaining what data is retrieved (financial symbols, stock symbols, tradable instruments from global exchanges) without redundant parameter details.

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: 'retrieve a comprehensive list of financial symbols' using the 'FMP Company Symbols List API'. It specifies the resource ('financial symbols', 'stock symbols', 'tradable financial instruments') and scope ('global exchanges'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'searchSymbol' or 'getAvailableExchanges', which could provide overlapping functionality.

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 exploring 'the full range of available securities' but doesn't specify use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions. With many sibling tools (e.g., 'searchSymbol', 'getAvailableExchanges', 'getETFList'), the lack of comparative context leaves the agent guessing about appropriate selection.

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