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 the data source ('FMP Cryptocurrencies Overview API') and that the list is 'comprehensive' with 'detailed information', but does not describe key behaviors such as rate limits, authentication needs, data freshness, pagination, or error handling. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves critical operational aspects unspecified.

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 core functionality, and the second adds the use case. It avoids redundancy and is front-loaded with key information. However, it could be slightly more efficient by integrating the use case into the first sentence without losing clarity.

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 accessing cryptocurrency data and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what 'detailed information' includes, the format of the returned list, potential limitations, or how to handle the data. For a tool with no structured behavioral or output documentation, the description should provide more context to be fully helpful.

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 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description does not add parameter details, which is appropriate. A baseline score of 4 is given because the schema fully covers the parameters (none), and the description does not need to compensate for any gaps.

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 a comprehensive list of all cryptocurrencies traded on exchanges worldwide' and 'Get detailed information on each cryptocurrency'. It specifies the verb ('access', 'get'), resource ('cryptocurrencies'), and scope ('worldwide'), but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'getCryptocurrencyQuote' or 'getCryptoQuotes', which focus on specific quotes rather than a comprehensive list.

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 'to inform your investment strategies', which is a general use case but does not specify contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions. With many sibling tools related to cryptocurrencies (e.g., 'getCryptocurrencyQuote', 'getCryptoQuotes'), the lack of comparative guidance is a significant gap.

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