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 quotes' and 'comprehensive price data', implying read-only access, but doesn't specify rate limits, authentication requirements, data freshness, or error handling. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its operational 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, consisting of two sentences that directly state the tool's purpose and data scope. There's no wasted verbiage, and it efficiently communicates the core functionality. However, it could be slightly more structured by explicitly separating purpose from data details.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the return values look like (e.g., JSON structure, fields beyond those mentioned), error conditions, or how it differs from similar sibling tools. For a tool with no structured metadata, the description should provide more operational 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 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'symbol' documented as 'Cryptocurrency symbol (e.g., BTCUSD)'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema—it doesn't clarify format constraints, valid symbols, or examples beyond the schema's mention. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 real-time quotes for all cryptocurrencies' and 'Obtain comprehensive price data including current, high, low, and open prices.' It specifies the verb ('access', 'obtain'), resource ('cryptocurrency quotes'), and scope ('all cryptocurrencies', 'comprehensive price data'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'getCryptocurrencyShortQuote' or 'getCryptoQuotes', which appear to offer similar functionality.

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 doesn't mention sibling tools like 'getCryptocurrencyShortQuote' (which might provide less data) or 'getCryptoQuotes' (which might have different parameters or scope). There's no context about prerequisites, limitations, or typical use cases beyond the generic statement about accessing quotes.

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