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 must fully disclose behavioral traits. It states the tool accesses 'historical end-of-day prices' and tracks 'trends in price and trading volume over time,' which implies read-only data retrieval. However, it lacks details on rate limits, authentication requirements, data freshness, or error handling. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 tool's purpose and utility. There is no unnecessary information or redundancy, making it easy to read. However, it could be slightly improved by structuring usage guidelines or behavioral details more explicitly, but overall, it is well-sized for its content.

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 (historical data retrieval with three parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain return values, data formats, or potential limitations like date range constraints or supported cryptocurrencies. For a tool with no structured behavioral data, the description should provide more context to ensure proper usage.

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, clearly documenting parameters for symbol, start date, and end date. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, a 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 historical end-of-day prices for a variety of cryptocurrencies' and 'Track trends in price and trading volume over time.' It specifies the verb ('access,' 'track') and resource ('historical end-of-day prices,' 'cryptocurrencies'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'getCryptocurrencyHistoricalFullChart' or 'getCryptocurrencyQuote,' which could improve clarity.

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 tracking trends over time but does not specify use cases, prerequisites, or comparisons to sibling tools such as 'getCryptocurrencyHistoricalFullChart' or 'getCryptocurrency1HourData.' Without this context, users may struggle to choose the right tool for their needs.

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