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 mentions 'real-time' and 'up-to-the-minute insights', which suggest live data access, but does not cover critical aspects like rate limits, authentication requirements, data freshness guarantees, or error handling. For a data-fetching tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its operational behavior.

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, with no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose ('Access real-time 1-minute intraday forex data') and follows with the benefit ('Track short-term price movements...'). However, it could be slightly more efficient by integrating the API name less prominently, but overall it earns its place without redundancy.

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 time-series forex data), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what the output looks like (e.g., data structure, fields like open/high/low/close), potential limitations (e.g., historical data availability), or integration details. For a data retrieval tool with three parameters and no structured output documentation, this leaves the agent underinformed.

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 definitions (symbol, from, to). The description adds no additional semantic context beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples beyond 'EURUSD' or date range constraints. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description does not compensate but also does not 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: 'Access real-time 1-minute intraday forex data' and 'Track short-term price movements for precise, up-to-the-minute insights on currency pair fluctuations.' It specifies the verb ('access', 'track'), resource ('forex data'), and scope ('1-minute intraday', 'short-term'), but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like getForex1HourData or getForex5MinuteData, which would require a 5.

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 'short-term price movements' and 'up-to-the-minute insights', which imply usage for high-frequency analysis, but does not specify when to choose this over other forex data tools (e.g., getForex1HourData for longer intervals) or other data types. No explicit when/when-not statements or named alternatives are provided.

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