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. While it mentions the API source and purpose, it doesn't describe important behavioral aspects like rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, response format, or whether this is a read-only operation. The description provides basic context but misses critical operational details.

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 that efficiently convey the tool's purpose and value. The first sentence states what it does, and the second explains why you'd use it. There's no wasted text, though it could be slightly more structured for maximum clarity.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the response looks like (list of dates? structured objects?), doesn't mention error handling, and provides minimal behavioral context. Given the complexity of financial data tools and the lack of structured metadata, the description should do more to compensate.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents all three parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any meaningful parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it mentions 'specific stock exchanges' and 'dates' but provides no additional context about parameter usage, constraints, or examples beyond the schema's already comprehensive 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 holiday schedules for specific stock exchanges' using a specific API. It identifies the resource (holiday schedules) and verb (access/find out), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'getAllExchangeMarketHours' or 'getExchangeMarketHours' that might provide related information.

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 implies usage context ('plan your trading activities accordingly') and suggests when to use it (for holiday schedule information), but doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention specific alternatives among the many sibling tools. It provides some guidance but lacks explicit differentiation from similar tools.

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