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 accessing data and analyzing changes, but does not specify whether this is a read-only operation, if there are rate limits, authentication requirements, or what the output format might be. The description lacks critical behavioral details needed for safe and effective tool invocation, especially for a data access tool with no output schema.

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 and avoids unnecessary fluff, but it could be more front-loaded. The first sentence states the core purpose, but the second sentence adds analysis aspects that might be implied. While not wasteful, it lacks optimal structure for quick comprehension by an AI agent.

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 of historical data analysis and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what data is returned (e.g., time periods, metrics), how to interpret results, or any limitations. For a tool with no structured output information, more contextual detail is needed to guide the agent 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 0 parameters with 100% coverage, meaning no parameters are documented in the schema. The description does not mention any parameters, which is appropriate here. Since there are no parameters, the baseline is 4, as the description does not need to compensate for missing parameter information.

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: 'Access historical data for the Dow Jones Industrial Average' and 'Analyze changes in the index’s composition and study its performance across different periods.' It specifies the resource (Dow Jones Industrial Average) and the action (access historical data, analyze changes, study performance). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'getHistoricalSP500Changes' or 'getHistoricalNasdaqChanges' beyond the resource name, which is why it doesn't reach a score of 5.

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 analyzing changes and studying performance, but does not specify contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions. With many sibling tools available (e.g., 'getHistoricalSP500Changes'), there is no explicit comparison or recommendation, leaving the agent without clear usage instructions.

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