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 accesses data via the Dow Jones API but doesn't specify whether this is a read-only operation, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what the output format looks like (e.g., JSON structure, error handling). For a data-fetching tool with zero annotation coverage, 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 two sentences that efficiently cover the tool's purpose and scope, with no redundant information. However, it could be more front-loaded by starting with the core action (e.g., 'Retrieve constituent data for the Dow Jones Industrial Average') and then adding context. Some phrases like 'important stock index' are slightly verbose but not excessive.

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 and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what specific data is returned (e.g., company names, weights, prices), how trends are analyzed, or any limitations (e.g., real-time vs. historical data). For a tool in a server with many siblings, more detail is needed to distinguish it and guide proper 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?

The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, focusing instead on the tool's purpose and capabilities. This meets the baseline for tools with no parameters, as there's nothing to compensate for.

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 data on the Dow Jones Industrial Average' and 'get detailed information about the companies that make up this important stock index.' It specifies the resource (Dow Jones Industrial Average) and the action (access data, track values, analyze trends, get company information). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'getSP500Constituents' or 'getNasdaqConstituents' beyond mentioning 'this important stock index.'

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 general capabilities like 'track current values, analyze trends' but doesn't specify scenarios, prerequisites, or compare it to similar tools such as 'getSP500Constituents' or 'getAllIndexQuotes.' The agent must infer usage from the tool name and description alone.

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