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 'real-time' data and tracking 'price changes and trading activity,' which gives some behavioral context. However, it lacks critical details such as rate limits, data freshness, error handling, authentication requirements, or whether the operation is read-only (implied but not stated). For a tool with no annotations, this is insufficient.

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 front-loaded, with the core purpose stated in the first sentence. The second sentence adds supplementary context ('Track price changes...') but could be considered slightly redundant. Overall, it is efficient with minimal waste, though it could be more structured with clearer separation of purpose and usage.

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 retrieving exchange-wide stock quotes, the description is incomplete. No annotations are provided, and there is no output schema, so the description should explain return values, data format, or limitations. It fails to address key aspects like pagination, data volume, or error scenarios, making it inadequate for a tool with significant scope.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters ('exchange' and 'short'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema—it does not explain parameter formats, constraints, or examples. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting, but the description does not compensate with extra insights.

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 real-time stock quotes for all listed stocks on a specific exchange.' It specifies the verb ('retrieve'), resource ('stock quotes'), and scope ('all listed stocks on a specific exchange'). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'getQuote', 'getBatchQuotes', or 'getAllIndexQuotes', which also retrieve quotes but with different scopes or filters.

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 'price changes and trading activity across the entire exchange,' but this is part of the purpose, not usage instructions. There is no mention of prerequisites, when-not-to-use scenarios, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'getQuote' (single symbol) or 'getBatchQuotes' (multiple symbols).

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