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 full burden. It mentions the API provides 'comprehensive information' but lacks critical behavioral details: whether this is a read-only operation, rate limits, authentication requirements, error handling, or response format. The description is vague on operational constraints.

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 efficiently structured in two sentences: the first states the tool's purpose and data scope, the second elaborates on the API's comprehensiveness. It's front-loaded with key information and avoids unnecessary details, though it could be slightly more concise by merging related points.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a tool with three parameters, the description is incomplete. It fails to address behavioral aspects like safety, performance, or response structure, which are crucial for an AI agent to use the tool effectively. The description provides basic purpose but lacks operational context.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents the three parameters (symbol, from, to). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying date range usage through 'historical' and 'end-of-day prices,' which the schema already covers. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 full historical end-of-day prices for stock indexes' with specific details about the data provided (open, high, low, close prices, volume, and additional metrics). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'getHistoricalIndexLightChart' by specifying 'full' historical data, though it doesn't explicitly compare to all siblings.

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 doesn't mention sibling tools like 'getHistoricalIndexLightChart' for lighter data, 'getFullChart' for stocks, or 'getIndexQuote' for current quotes. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or context for selection.

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