Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Financial Modeling Prep MCP Server

Financial Modeling Prep MCP Server

by imbenrabi
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

getFundSectorWeighting

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve an ETF's sector allocation percentages by symbol to assess sector exposure and compare how much of the fund is invested in each sector.

Instructions

The FMP ETF Sector Weighting API provides a breakdown of the percentage of an ETF's assets that are invested in each sector. For example, an investor may want to invest in an ETF that has a high exposure to the technology sector if they believe that the technology sector is poised for growth.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "symbol": "<symbol>"
    },
    "name": "getFundSectorWeighting"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
symbolYesFund symbol

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv2.9.0
    • changedInput schema / $schema
      Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"
    • removedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Removed value: -false
  2. First observed

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the result is a per-sector percentage breakdown, which is useful output context since no output schema exists. It does not disclose any behavioral edges — whether non-ETF or unsupported symbols return empty results, or what the response looks like for funds with no data.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The purpose is front-loaded and the text is short, which is good. However, the entire second sentence is a speculative investor scenario that adds no operational value and would be better replaced with actual guidance about what the tool returns or when to prefer it over fund holdings or asset exposure tools.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple one-parameter read tool with annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose but leaves meaningful gaps. It does not confirm whether coverage is limited to ETFs, nor describe the shape of each record (sector name plus percentage), which matters because there is no output schema to fall back on.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('Fund symbol'), so the schema already carries the semantics. The description adds nothing beyond that — it does not clarify accepted symbol formats, exchange suffixes, or whether mutual funds are valid inputs. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource: a breakdown of the percentage of an ETF's assets invested in each sector. That is clear enough for an agent to understand what the tool returns. It falls short of a 5 because it never distinguishes this from close siblings such as getFundAssetExposure, getFundCountryAllocation, or getFundHoldings, which an agent could easily confuse it with.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no named alternative. The second sentence is an investor-motivation anecdote about believing in the technology sector rather than an instruction about when this tool is the right call. An agent is left to infer that this is a lookup-by-symbol tool rather than a screener.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools