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 uses the 'FMP ETF Symbol Search API' and 'simplifies identifying,' but lacks critical details: whether it's read-only or mutating, any rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or output format (e.g., list structure, pagination). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency about how the tool behaves.

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 highly concise and well-structured. It consists of two sentences: the first states the purpose and API, and the second explains the benefit. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, and it's front-loaded with the core functionality. There's no wasted text, making it efficient for an AI agent to parse.

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 simplicity (0 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is somewhat complete but has gaps. It covers the basic purpose and API source, which is adequate for a straightforward search tool. However, without annotations or an output schema, it should ideally mention the return type (e.g., list of ETFs with tickers/names) or any behavioral constraints. It's minimally viable but could be more informative for full contextual understanding.

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 tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (since there are no parameters to describe). The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics beyond the schema, as there are none. It appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, so a baseline score of 4 is warranted—no compensation is needed, and the description avoids unnecessary parameter details.

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: 'find ticker symbols and company names for Exchange Traded Funds (ETFs)' using a specific API. It specifies the verb ('find'), resource ('ETFs'), and scope ('ticker symbols and company names'), making it distinct from many sibling tools that handle different financial data types. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential ETF-related siblings like 'getETFHoldersBulk' or 'getETFQuotes', which slightly reduces clarity.

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 the tool 'simplifies identifying specific ETFs by their name or ticker,' which implies a search function, but offers no explicit when-to-use rules, prerequisites, or alternatives. Given the many sibling tools (e.g., 'searchSymbol', 'searchName'), it fails to clarify when to choose this tool over others for ETF-related searches, leaving the agent with little direction.

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