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 mentions 'real-time quotes' and 'price changes and updates', hinting at dynamic data, but fails to disclose critical behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication requirements, data freshness, error handling, or response format. This leaves significant gaps for a tool handling financial data.

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 efficiently convey the core functionality. Every sentence adds value (first states purpose, second elaborates on benefits), though minor redundancy exists ('real-time' is mentioned twice).

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, no output schema, and a simple input schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral aspects (e.g., rate limits, auth), response structure, error cases, and explicit sibling differentiation. For a tool interacting with a financial API, this leaves too much unspecified for reliable agent use.

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 one parameter ('short') fully documented in the schema. The description does not add any parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't explain what 'short format' entails or its impact). Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.

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 with specific verbs ('Retrieve', 'Get') and resources ('real-time quotes for multiple forex currency pairs', 'price changes and updates'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like getForexQuote (singular) by emphasizing 'multiple' pairs in a 'single request', though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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 implies usage for batch forex quote retrieval ('multiple forex currency pairs', 'single request'), suggesting efficiency for bulk needs. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like getForexQuote (for single pairs) or getForexBatchQuotes (similar batch function), and provides no exclusions or prerequisites.

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