Financial Modeling Prep MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'real-time' and '1-minute interval' data, but doesn't cover critical aspects like rate limits, authentication requirements, data freshness guarantees, error conditions, or response format. 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: the first states the core functionality, the second provides usage context. There's minimal waste, though the second sentence could be more directly actionable. It's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 moderate complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It lacks information about response structure, error handling, rate limits, and authentication requirements. While it covers the basic purpose, it doesn't provide enough context for reliable agent usage without additional trial-and-error or external documentation.

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 100% description coverage, thoroughly documenting all three parameters (symbol, from, to). The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. According to scoring rules, when schema_description_coverage is high (>80%), the baseline score is 3 even with no parameter info in the description.

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 real-time, 1-minute interval price data for cryptocurrencies' with specific verb ('Get'), resource ('price data'), and temporal scope ('1-minute interval'). It distinguishes from general cryptocurrency tools but doesn't explicitly differentiate from its direct siblings like getCryptocurrency1HourData or getCryptocurrency5MinuteData beyond the interval mention.

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 implies usage context ('Monitor short-term price fluctuations and trading volume to stay updated on market movements'), suggesting it's for real-time monitoring. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., vs. getCryptocurrency1HourData for longer intervals or getCryptocurrencyQuote for current quotes), nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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