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' and 'live prices,' implying freshness, but lacks details on rate limits, authentication needs, data sources (FMP API), error handling, or response format. This is inadequate for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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, stating the core purpose in the first sentence. Both sentences add value: the first defines the action and resource, the second elaborates on data types. There's no wasted text, though it could be slightly more structured with bullet points or explicit constraints.

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 parameter schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks behavioral context like rate limits, authentication, error handling, and doesn't explain the return values or how 'short' parameter affects output. For a real-time data tool, this leaves significant gaps for an AI 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 the schema already documents the single parameter 'short' with its description. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as examples of when to use short format or its impact on output. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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: 'Access real-time cryptocurrency quotes' with specific resources like 'live prices, trading volumes, and price changes for a wide range of digital assets.' It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'getCryptocurrencyQuote' by emphasizing 'real-time' and 'wide range,' but doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'getCryptocurrencyBatchQuotes' or 'getCryptocurrencyShortQuote.'

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description mentions 'real-time cryptocurrency quotes' but doesn't specify contexts like single vs. batch queries, short vs. full formats, or compare to sibling tools such as 'getCryptocurrencyShortQuote' or 'getCryptocurrencyBatchQuotes.'

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