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 tool calculates EMA and its analytical purpose, but fails to disclose critical behavioral traits: it does not specify whether this is a read-only operation, what the output format is (e.g., numeric value, chart, or time series), potential rate limits, error conditions, or data freshness. For a tool with no annotations, 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 appropriately sized with two sentences: the first states the core functionality, and the second explains its utility. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and avoids unnecessary details. However, the second sentence could be more tightly integrated or omitted for pure conciseness, but it adds contextual value without being wasteful.

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 traits (e.g., read-only status, error handling), output format, and usage constraints. While the schema covers parameters well, the overall context for an AI agent to correctly invoke and interpret results is insufficient, especially without annotations to fill gaps.

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 each parameter clearly documented (e.g., 'symbol' as 'Stock symbol', 'timeframe' with enumerated values). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining interactions between parameters (e.g., how 'periodLength' relates to 'timeframe') or default behaviors. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema does the heavy lifting without description enhancement.

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 Exponential Moving Average (EMA) for a stock using the FMP EMA API.' It specifies the verb ('Calculate'), resource ('EMA for a stock'), and implementation source ('FMP EMA API'). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like getSMA, getDEMA, or getTEMA, which are similar technical indicators, leaving room for ambiguity in sibling distinction.

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 implied usage by stating the tool 'helps users analyze trends and identify potential buy or sell signals based on historical price data,' which suggests it's for financial analysis. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other indicators like getSMA or getRSI), and does not mention any prerequisites or exclusions, such as data availability or timeframe limitations.

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