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. It mentions accessing 'detailed information on market value, share numbers, and weight percentages', which adds some behavioral context about return data. However, it lacks critical details like rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or whether it's a read-only operation. For a tool with no annotations, this is insufficient to fully inform agent 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 concise and well-structured in two sentences. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second adds details on the information accessed. There's no wasted language, and it's front-loaded with the main action, making it efficient for quick understanding.

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 moderate complexity (single parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the purpose and data returned but lacks usage guidelines, behavioral details, and output specifics. Without an output schema, it should ideally describe return values more thoroughly, but it provides enough to get started, albeit with gaps.

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 the 'symbol' parameter documented as 'Fund symbol'. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific semantics beyond this, such as format examples or constraints. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't 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: 'Discover which ETFs hold specific stocks' using the 'FMP ETF Asset Exposure API'. It specifies the action (discover), resource (ETFs holding specific stocks), and API source. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'getETFHoldersBulk' or 'getFundHoldings', which might offer similar ETF-related data, so it misses full sibling distinction.

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 the API but doesn't specify scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions. With many sibling tools (e.g., 'getETFHoldersBulk', 'getFundHoldings'), there's no indication of how this tool differs or when it's preferred, leaving usage ambiguous.

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