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 'real-time information' which suggests current data, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication requirements, data freshness, pagination, error conditions, or what happens when no trades exist for a symbol. For a data retrieval tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.

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 that directly address purpose and value. The first sentence states what the tool does, the second explains why it's useful. There's no wasted text, though it could be slightly more front-loaded with immediate usage context.

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 moderate complexity (single parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It explains what data is retrieved but lacks crucial context about behavioral characteristics, return format, error handling, and differentiation from similar tools. The absence of output schema means the description should ideally hint at response structure, which it doesn't.

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% with one parameter ('symbol' described as 'Stock symbol'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. It doesn't explain what types of symbols are valid, if it's limited to U.S. stocks, or how the symbol parameter filters the results. With complete schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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: 'Track the financial trades made by U.S. House members and their families' with specific resources (stock sales, purchases, investment activities). It distinguishes itself from general financial tools by focusing on congressional trading data, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'getHouseTradesByName' which appears to be a similar tool with different parameters.

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 accessing 'real-time information' but doesn't specify use cases, prerequisites, or when to choose this over 'getHouseTradesByName' or other trading data tools in the extensive sibling list. The context is implied but not explicitly stated.

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