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 must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions 'real-time price quotes' and tracking data, which implies a read-only, non-destructive operation, but does not explicitly state this. It lacks details on rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or response format (e.g., what 'key data' includes). For a tool with no annotations, this is a significant gap in behavioral context.

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 ('Get real-time price quotes for exchange-traded funds (ETFs)') and then elaborating on the data tracked. There is no wasted language, but it could be slightly more efficient by integrating the API mention into the first sentence.

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 (financial data retrieval), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the return values, error conditions, or operational constraints (e.g., real-time limitations, data freshness). For a tool in a server with many siblings, more context is needed to ensure proper agent usage.

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 one parameter ('short') documented as 'Whether to use short format'. The description does not add any meaning beyond this, as it does not mention parameters at all. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema adequately handles parameter semantics without additional description input.

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: 'Get real-time price quotes for exchange-traded funds (ETFs)' with the FMP ETF Price Quotes API. It specifies the resource (ETFs) and the action (get quotes), and mentions tracking current prices, performance changes, and key data. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'getQuote', 'getBatchQuotes', or 'getETFList', which reduces clarity about when this specific ETF-focused tool is preferred.

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 tracking data for ETFs but does not specify prerequisites, exclusions, or compare it to similar tools in the sibling list (e.g., 'getQuote' for general stocks, 'getBatchQuotes' for multiple symbols). This lack of contextual usage instructions leaves the agent without clear direction.

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