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 mentions 'real-time, intraday price data' and '5-minute interval,' which gives some context on data frequency and recency. However, it doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication requirements, data freshness (e.g., latency), error handling, or what the output looks like (since no output schema exists). For a data-fetching tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 well-structured in two sentences: the first states the tool's purpose, and the second adds usage context. It avoids redundancy and is front-loaded with key information. However, it could be slightly more efficient by integrating the usage context more tightly, but overall, it's appropriately sized with minimal waste.

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 cryptocurrency data), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It covers the basic purpose and usage but fails to address behavioral aspects like data limitations, error cases, or output format. For a tool with three parameters and no structured behavioral hints, more context is needed to ensure the agent can use it effectively.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for 'symbol,' 'from,' and 'to' parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides—it doesn't explain parameter constraints, formats (e.g., date ranges), or usage examples. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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: 'Analyze short-term price trends with the 5-Minute Interval Cryptocurrency Data API' and 'Access real-time, intraday price data for cryptocurrencies.' It specifies the verb ('analyze,' 'access'), resource ('cryptocurrency data'), and time interval ('5-minute,' 'intraday'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'getCryptocurrency1MinuteData' or 'getCryptocurrency1HourData,' which reduces clarity for sibling comparison.

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: 'to monitor rapid market movements and optimize trading strategies,' suggesting it's for short-term analysis. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., vs. 1-minute or 1-hour data tools), nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. The guidance is present but lacks specificity for sibling differentiation.

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