Financial Modeling Prep MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool accesses data via an API but doesn't describe what 'performance' means (returns, metrics?), data format, rate limits, authentication needs, or error conditions. For a data retrieval tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 appropriately concise with two sentences. The first sentence clearly states the core purpose, and the second adds context about reviewing sector performance. There's no wasted language, though it could be slightly more front-loaded with key constraints.

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?

For a tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what 'performance' data is returned (percentage changes? absolute values?), data granularity, limitations, or how results are structured. The agent would need to guess about the output format and behavioral constraints.

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 all 4 parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema - it mentions 'over time' (implied date parameters) and 'across various stock exchanges' (implied exchange parameter), but doesn't provide additional semantic context like valid sector values, date format details, or exchange options beyond what's in the schema descriptions.

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 sector performance data' with the verb 'access' and resource 'historical sector performance data'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'getSectorPerformanceSnapshot' by specifying 'historical' data over time, but doesn't explicitly contrast with other historical tools like 'getHistoricalIndustryPerformance'.

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 minimal usage guidance. It mentions 'over time across various stock exchanges' which implies temporal and exchange parameters, but doesn't specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'getSectorPerformanceSnapshot' (current data) or 'getHistoricalIndustryPerformance' (industry vs sector). No explicit when/when-not guidance or named alternatives are provided.

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