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 the API source ('FMP ETF Sector Weighting API') and the type of data returned (percentage breakdown by sector), but fails to disclose critical behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication requirements, error handling, or data freshness. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves operationally.

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 two sentences: one states the purpose, and the other gives an example. It's reasonably concise but includes an example that, while helpful, could be considered slightly verbose for a pure description. The structure is front-loaded with the core functionality, but the example doesn't earn its place by adding critical usage guidance beyond basic context.

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 complexity (a data retrieval tool with no annotations and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It explains what the tool does but lacks details on output format (e.g., structure of the sector breakdown), error cases, or dependencies. Without annotations or an output schema, the description should compensate more to ensure the agent can use it effectively, which it doesn't do sufficiently.

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 schema does the heavy lifting. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific details beyond what's in the schema—it doesn't clarify format (e.g., ticker symbol conventions), examples, or constraints. This meets the baseline of 3 since the schema provides adequate parameter documentation.

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: 'provides a breakdown of the percentage of an ETF's assets that are invested in each sector.' It specifies the verb ('provides') and resource ('ETF Sector Weighting'), making it easy to understand. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'getFundAssetExposure' or 'getFundCountryAllocation', which might provide similar breakdowns for different dimensions.

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 includes an example use case ('an investor may want to invest in an ETF that has a high exposure to the technology sector'), which implies when to use it. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives (e.g., other fund analysis tools in the sibling list), prerequisites, or limitations. No clear when-not-to-use or alternative tool references are provided.

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