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 EOD price data for analysis, implying a read-only operation, but does not cover critical aspects like rate limits, authentication needs, data freshness, error handling, or output format. For a data-fetching tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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, front-loading the core purpose and following with analytical context. There is no wasted verbiage, though it could be slightly more direct by omitting marketing phrases like 'to inform strategic decisions'.

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 complexity of fetching historical cryptocurrency data, the description is incomplete. No annotations exist to clarify behavior, and there is no output schema, leaving the return format unspecified. The description does not address data granularity (e.g., daily intervals), limitations, or error cases, making it inadequate for informed tool invocation.

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 clear parameter descriptions in the schema (symbol, from, to). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying date-range filtering for 'long-term price trends'. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description provides minimal extra value.

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 comprehensive end-of-day (EOD) price data for cryptocurrencies' and mentions analyzing trends, market movements, and volumes. It specifies the resource (cryptocurrency price data) and verb (access/analyze), but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'getCryptocurrencyHistoricalLightChart' or 'getCryptocurrency1HourData', which likely offer different granularity or scope.

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 analyzing long-term trends but does not specify scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions. With many sibling tools for cryptocurrency data (e.g., light chart, minute data, quotes), the lack of comparative context leaves the agent without clear usage direction.

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