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 states this is a data access tool but doesn't mention rate limits, authentication requirements, data freshness, error conditions, or response format. The phrase 'Gain detailed insights' is promotional rather than informative about actual 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 efficiently structured in two sentences: one stating the core functionality and another detailing the data fields. While slightly promotional ('Gain detailed insights'), it's appropriately sized and front-loaded with essential information.

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 data retrieval tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain the return format, pagination, date range limitations, or error handling. With no annotations and no output schema, users need more context about what to expect from this API call.

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 parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond mentioning 'currency pair movements' which relates to the 'symbol' parameter, but doesn't provide format examples or constraints beyond what the schema already specifies.

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 comprehensive historical end-of-day forex price data' with specific details about the data types (OHLC prices, volume, percentage changes). It distinguishes from sibling 'getForexHistoricalLightChart' by specifying 'Full' chart data, though it doesn't explicitly contrast them.

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 like 'getForexHistoricalLightChart' or other forex data tools. It mentions the data type but gives no context about appropriate use cases, prerequisites, or limitations.

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