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 states the tool accesses data but doesn't mention whether it's read-only, requires authentication, has rate limits, returns paginated results, or what the output format looks like. For a data-fetching tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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, with the first stating the core purpose and the second explaining benefits. There's minimal fluff, though the second sentence could be more tool-specific rather than generic trading advice.

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 (fetching time-series data with date ranges), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like data freshness, error handling, or output structure, leaving the agent with incomplete context for reliable 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents the three parameters (symbol, from, to). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as format examples for dates beyond 'YYYY-MM-DD' or symbol conventions. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 detailed 1-hour intraday price data for cryptocurrencies' with a specific verb ('access') and resource ('1-hour intraday price data for cryptocurrencies'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'getCryptocurrency1MinuteData' and 'getCryptocurrency5MinuteData' by specifying the 1-hour interval, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with them.

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. It mentions general benefits ('track hourly price movements...make informed trading decisions') but offers no context about prerequisites, when-not-to-use scenarios, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'getCryptocurrencyHistoricalFullChart' or 'getCryptocurrencyQuote'.

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