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 for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool accesses news via an API and lists output types (headlines, snippets, URLs), but lacks critical behavioral details: whether it's read-only (implied but not stated), rate limits, authentication needs, pagination behavior (though 'page' parameter hints at it), or error handling. 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 efficiently structured in two sentences: the first states the purpose and API source, the second details the output format. It's front-loaded with key information and avoids redundancy. However, it could be slightly more concise by integrating the output details into the first sentence without losing clarity.

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 4 parameters, the description is incomplete. It covers the basic purpose and output types but misses behavioral context (e.g., read-only nature, rate limits), usage differentiation from siblings, and deeper parameter insights. For a news-fetching tool with multiple parameters and sibling alternatives, more comprehensive guidance is needed to fully inform the agent.

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 parameters ('from', 'to', 'page', 'limit') are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond implying date-range filtering through 'latest cryptocurrency news'. It doesn't explain parameter interactions, default behaviors, or constraints beyond what the schema provides, 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: 'Stay informed with the latest cryptocurrency news' using the 'FMP Crypto News API' to 'access a curated list of articles'. It specifies the resource (cryptocurrency news) and key outputs (headlines, snippets, URLs). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'searchCryptoNews' or 'getStockNews', which would require more specific scope or filtering details.

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 accessing 'latest cryptocurrency news' but doesn't specify if this is for general browsing, date-filtered queries, or how it differs from 'searchCryptoNews' (a sibling tool). There's no mention of prerequisites, limitations, or typical use cases, leaving the agent without contextual usage cues.

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