Financial Modeling Prep MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the API source ('Global Exchange Market Hours API') and the type of data returned ('opening and closing times'), but doesn't describe important behavioral aspects like response format, error handling, rate limits, authentication requirements, or whether this is a read-only operation. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.

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 concise with two sentences. The first sentence clearly states the tool's purpose and API source. The second sentence provides context about why one might use it. There's no wasted language, though the second sentence could be considered slightly promotional rather than purely functional.

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?

For a single-parameter read operation with no output schema, the description provides basic purpose and context but lacks important details. Without annotations, it should ideally describe the response format, error conditions, and any limitations. The description mentions the API source but doesn't fully compensate for the lack of structured behavioral information.

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 the single parameter 'exchange' clearly documented as 'Exchange code (e.g., NASDAQ, NYSE)'. The description doesn't add any parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, but doesn't need to since schema coverage is complete. This meets the baseline expectation for high schema coverage.

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: 'Retrieve trading hours for specific stock exchanges' using a specific API. It specifies the resource (stock exchanges) and the action (retrieve trading hours). However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this from its sibling 'getAllExchangeMarketHours', which appears to retrieve hours for all exchanges rather than specific ones.

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 'to plan your trading strategies effectively' as a general benefit, but doesn't specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'getAllExchangeMarketHours' or 'getHolidaysByExchange'. No explicit when/when-not guidance or prerequisites are provided.

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