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 full burden. It describes the tool as providing 'detailed 5-minute intraday data' and 'near real-time' monitoring, which implies read-only data retrieval. However, it lacks critical behavioral details: whether there are rate limits, authentication requirements, data freshness guarantees, or error conditions. For a data-fetching 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 efficiently structured in two sentences that directly address purpose and data access. It avoids unnecessary fluff and front-loads key information. However, it could be slightly more concise by combining ideas, but overall it's well-sized for its content.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a data retrieval tool. It doesn't explain what the output looks like (e.g., OHLC data, timestamps), potential limitations, or error handling. While it covers the basic purpose, it fails to provide enough context for reliable agent use without additional assumptions.

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%, with all three parameters (symbol, from, to) well-documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond implying date-range filtering through 'intraday data' and 'near real-time'. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 short-term forex trends with the 5-Minute Forex Interval Chart API' and 'Access detailed 5-minute intraday data'. It specifies the verb ('track', 'access'), resource ('forex trends', '5-minute intraday data'), and scope ('short-term', 'near real-time'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like getForex1HourData or getForex1MinuteData, 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 forex trends' and 'near real-time' monitoring, but doesn't specify use cases, prerequisites, or compare it to other forex data tools in the sibling list. This leaves the agent without clear selection criteria.

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