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 accessing 'latest forex news articles' but doesn't describe the tool's behavior: whether it returns paginated results (implied by 'page' parameter but not stated), rate limits, authentication requirements, error handling, or the structure of returned data. For a data-fetching tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool operates.

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 appropriately concise with two sentences that efficiently convey the tool's purpose and data scope. It avoids redundancy and is front-loaded with the main function. However, it could be slightly more structured by explicitly separating the purpose from usage notes.

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 (4 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return format (e.g., list of articles with fields), pagination behavior, error cases, or how it differs from 'searchForexNews'. For a tool that fetches financial data, more context is needed to use it effectively without trial and error.

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 documentation for all four parameters (from, to, page, limit). The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, such as date format examples or pagination details. According to the scoring rules, when schema_description_coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description.

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: 'Stay updated with the latest forex news articles from various sources using the FMP Forex News API. Access headlines, snippets, and publication URLs for comprehensive market insights.' It specifies the verb ('access'), resource ('forex news articles'), and data elements (headlines, snippets, URLs). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling tool 'searchForexNews', which appears to serve a similar domain.

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 'latest forex news' but doesn't specify if this is for recent articles only, how it differs from 'searchForexNews' (which likely allows keyword filtering), or any prerequisites. Without such context, the agent must infer usage from the tool name and parameters alone.

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