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 describes what data is accessed ('historical data for the Nasdaq index') and what can be analyzed ('changes in the index composition'), but does not specify behavioral traits such as data format, time range limitations, rate limits, authentication requirements, or error handling. This is inadequate for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 concise and well-structured in two sentences. The first sentence states the core function ('Access historical data...'), and the second elaborates on the analysis capabilities ('Analyze changes...'). There is no wasted language, and it is front-loaded with the primary purpose.

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 tool's complexity (historical data analysis), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what data is returned (e.g., format, fields), time periods covered, or how to interpret results like 'company additions and removals.' This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's full context and usage.

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 since none exist. It adds no semantic information beyond the schema, but with zero parameters, a baseline score of 4 is justified as the description does not need to compensate for missing parameter details.

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 Nasdaq index' and 'Analyze changes in the index composition and view how it has evolved over time, including company additions and removals.' It specifies the verb ('access', 'analyze', 'view') and resource ('historical data for the Nasdaq index'), but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'getHistoricalSP500Changes' or 'getHistoricalDowJonesChanges' beyond the Nasdaq focus.

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 in index composition, but does not specify use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions. With many sibling tools available (e.g., 'getHistoricalSP500Changes', 'getNasdaqConstituents'), the lack of comparative context leaves the agent without clear usage direction.

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