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. It mentions 'quickly retrieve' and 'bulk API', hinting at performance and scale, but lacks critical behavioral details: whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, rate limits, pagination, error handling, or the format of returned data. For a tool with no annotations, this is a significant gap.

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, front-loading the core purpose. Every sentence adds value: the first states the tool's function, and the second elaborates on the insights provided. There's no wasted text, though it could be slightly more specific.

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 tool's complexity (bulk ETF data retrieval), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return format, data scope (e.g., all ETFs or specific ones), or behavioral constraints. For a tool with no structured safety or output information, more detail is needed to guide effective 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 the single parameter 'part' fully described in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides (e.g., what 'part' represents in bulk retrieval, typical values, or how it affects output). Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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: retrieving detailed information about ETF holdings, including assets, shares, weight, and financial information. It uses specific verbs ('retrieve', 'provides insights') and identifies the resource (ETF holdings). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'getETFList' or 'getETFQuotes', which likely serve different purposes.

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 prerequisites, context for bulk retrieval, or compare it to similar tools in the sibling list (e.g., 'getETFList' for ETF metadata). Usage is implied by the name and description but not explicitly stated.

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