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 calculates DEMA using an API, which implies a read-only operation, but it does not disclose critical behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication requirements, error handling, or the format of the output (since there is no output schema). The description adds some context about trend analysis, but it lacks details on performance, data freshness, or limitations, which are essential for an agent to use the tool effectively.

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, consisting of two sentences. The first sentence clearly states the tool's purpose, and the second adds context about its utility in financial analysis. There is no redundant or unnecessary information, and it is front-loaded with the core functionality. However, it could be slightly improved by integrating usage hints or sibling tool references without sacrificing brevity.

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 a financial calculation tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral aspects (e.g., rate limits, error handling), does not explain the output format or structure, and provides minimal guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings. While the purpose is clear, the description fails to address key contextual elements needed for an agent to invoke the tool confidently and correctly in a real-world scenario.

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 clear parameter descriptions (e.g., 'Stock symbol', 'Period length for the indicator'). The description does not add any additional semantic information about the parameters beyond what the schema provides. It mentions 'historical price data,' which aligns with the 'from' and 'to' parameters, but offers no extra insights into parameter usage, constraints, or examples. Given the high schema coverage, 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: 'Calculate the Double Exponential Moving Average (DEMA) for a stock using the FMP DEMA API.' It specifies the verb ('calculate'), resource ('DEMA'), and target ('stock'), making the intent unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'getEMA', 'getSMA', or 'getTEMA', which are similar technical indicators, leaving room for confusion about when to choose DEMA over other moving averages.

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 minimal usage guidance. It mentions that the tool 'helps users analyze trends and identify potential buy or sell signals based on historical price data,' which implies a context of financial analysis, but it does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other technical indicators like EMA or SMA from the sibling list). There is no explicit guidance on prerequisites, exclusions, or comparisons to other tools, leaving the agent without clear direction on tool selection.

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