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 'provides hourly intraday data,' implying a read-only operation, but doesn't cover critical aspects like rate limits, authentication needs, data freshness, error handling, or output format. For a data-fetching tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it 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 concise and well-structured in two sentences. The first sentence states the purpose and resource, and the second adds context about data detail. There's no wasted language, and it's front-loaded with key information. However, it could be slightly more efficient by integrating the context 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 (fetching financial data with 3 parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It covers the basic purpose but misses behavioral details (e.g., rate limits, data format), usage guidelines, and output information. For a tool in a crowded sibling set, this leaves the agent with insufficient context to use it effectively.

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 clear parameter descriptions (e.g., 'Forex pair symbol,' 'Start date'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as format examples or constraints. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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: 'Track forex price movements... with the 1-Hour Forex Interval Chart API' and 'provides hourly intraday data for currency pairs.' It specifies the verb ('track,' 'provides'), resource ('forex price movements,' 'hourly intraday data'), and scope ('1-hour,' 'intraday'), making it easy to understand. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'getForex1MinuteData' or 'getForex5MinuteData,' though the '1-hour' naming implies this.

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 'track forex price movements' and 'detailed view of trends and market shifts,' which imply usage for hourly analysis, but it doesn't specify scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions. With many sibling tools (e.g., 'getForex1MinuteData,' 'getForex5MinuteData'), there's no explicit comparison or context for choosing this one over others.

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