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 'historical end-of-day forex prices' and 'long-term price trends', which imply read-only data retrieval, but does not cover critical behaviors like rate limits, authentication requirements, error handling, or data format (e.g., time intervals, pagination). For a data-fetching tool with no annotations, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 two sentences that directly state the tool's function and high-level benefit. There is no unnecessary verbiage, and each sentence contributes to understanding the tool's purpose. However, it could be slightly more structured by explicitly separating functional details from usage advice.

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 a historical data tool with 3 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain return values (e.g., data format, fields), behavioral aspects like rate limits or errors, and how it differs from sibling tools. This leaves gaps for an AI agent to correctly invoke and interpret results, especially without structured output information.

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 clear descriptions for 'symbol', 'from', and 'to' parameters in the input schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, 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 historical end-of-day forex prices' and 'Track long-term price trends across different currency pairs'. It specifies the verb ('access', 'track') and resource ('forex prices', 'currency pairs'), making the function evident. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'getForexHistoricalFullChart', which may offer different data granularity or scope.

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 minimal guidance on when to use this tool, mentioning 'enhance your trading and analysis strategies' but not specifying contexts or alternatives. It lacks explicit instructions on when to choose this over similar tools (e.g., 'getForexHistoricalFullChart') or other forex data tools in the sibling list, leaving usage decisions ambiguous.

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