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 full burden for behavioral disclosure. While it mentions accessing 'end-of-day price and volume data' and 'dividend adjustments,' it lacks critical details: whether this is a read-only operation, any rate limits, authentication requirements, data freshness, error conditions, or what the output format looks like (given no output schema). The description is insufficient for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 purpose and API source, and the second elaborates on the data type and benefit. There's minimal fluff, though it could be slightly more front-loaded by immediately highlighting the dividend adjustment feature.

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 financial data tools, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain critical behavioral aspects (e.g., read-only nature, error handling), doesn't differentiate from sibling tools, and provides no usage context. For a tool with three parameters and significant sibling overlap, this leaves too many gaps for effective agent use.

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 all three parameters ('symbol', 'from', 'to') clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying date-range filtering for 'stock trends over time,' which is already covered by the schema. This meets the baseline score of 3 when schema coverage is high.

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: 'Analyze stock performance with dividend adjustments' using a specific API. It specifies the resource (stock data) and key differentiator (dividend-adjusted prices), though it doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like 'getUnadjustedChart' or 'getFullChart' which likely provide similar chart data without dividend adjustments.

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 'offering a more comprehensive view of stock trends over time' but doesn't specify scenarios where dividend-adjusted data is preferred over unadjusted data, nor does it reference sibling tools like 'getUnadjustedChart' or 'getFullChart' that might serve similar purposes.

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