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 updates' and 'single request,' but does not cover critical aspects like rate limits, authentication needs, data freshness, error handling, or response format. For a tool accessing live financial data, this lack of behavioral context is a significant gap, though it does not contradict any annotations.

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, with two sentences that efficiently convey the core functionality. It avoids redundancy and wastes no words, though it could be slightly more structured by explicitly separating purpose from context. Every sentence adds value, making it 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 complexity (accessing live cryptocurrency data), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to address behavioral traits, usage guidelines, or output details, leaving the agent with insufficient context to effectively invoke the tool. While it states the purpose clearly, it does not provide enough information for safe and accurate 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%, with one parameter ('short') fully documented in the schema. The description does not add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or implications of using 'short' quotes. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description does not compensate but also does not 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: 'Access live price data for a wide range of cryptocurrencies' and 'Get real-time updates on prices, market changes, and trading volumes for digital assets in a single request.' It specifies the verb ('access', 'get'), resource ('cryptocurrencies', 'digital assets'), and scope ('batch', 'wide range', 'single request'). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like getCryptocurrencyQuote or getCryptocurrencyShortQuote, which likely serve similar purposes but for individual assets.

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 'batch' and 'wide range' but does not specify scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions. For example, it does not clarify if this is for bulk data retrieval compared to single-asset tools like getCryptocurrencyQuote, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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