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 must fully disclose behavioral traits. It states the tool provides detailed information on asset allocation percentages, which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't specify data freshness, rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling. The description is vague about what 'detailed information' entails, leaving gaps in understanding the tool's 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 front-loaded, stating the tool's purpose in the first sentence and adding context in the second. Both sentences are relevant, with no wasted words, though it could be slightly more structured by explicitly separating functionality from use-case benefits.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return format (e.g., JSON structure, data fields like country names and percentages), error conditions, or limitations. For a tool that likely returns complex allocation data, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how to interpret results effectively.

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 clearly documented as 'Fund symbol'. The description adds no additional semantic context about the parameter, such as format examples or valid symbol types. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't enhance parameter understanding beyond the schema.

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: to provide detailed information on how ETFs and mutual funds distribute assets across different countries. It specifies the resource (fund country allocation data) and the action (gain insight), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like getFundAssetExposure or getFundSectorWeighting, which focus on different allocation aspects.

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 mentions helping with investment decisions, implying a context of financial analysis, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like getFundHoldings or getFundSectorWeighting. It lacks any mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or specific scenarios where this tool is preferred over siblings.

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