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 'real-time data' which suggests freshness, but doesn't address critical behavioral aspects like rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, response format, or whether this is a read-only operation. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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 core functionality and value proposition. The first sentence states what the tool does, and the second explains the benefits. There's no unnecessary fluff or repetition, making it easy to parse.

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 that there are no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that presumably returns complex financial data. It mentions 'detailed breakdown' and 'real-time data' but doesn't describe the structure of the response, what fields to expect, or any limitations (e.g., data availability for certain funds). For a tool with rich data output, more context is needed.

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 (the 'symbol' parameter is documented as 'Fund symbol'), so the baseline is 3. The description doesn't add any additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides—it doesn't clarify what format the symbol should be in, provide examples, or explain what happens if an invalid symbol is provided.

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: 'Get a detailed breakdown of the assets held within ETFs and mutual funds' using a specific API. It specifies the resource (ETFs/mutual funds) and the action (get detailed breakdown of holdings). However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'getETFHoldersBulk' or 'getFundInfo', which might provide related but different information about funds.

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 accessing 'real-time data' and providing 'insights into asset composition and fund strategies', but doesn't specify scenarios where this tool is preferred over other fund-related tools in the sibling list, nor does it mention any prerequisites or limitations for usage.

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