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 mentions accessing 'detailed information' via an API but fails to specify critical traits like whether this is a read-only operation, if there are rate limits, authentication requirements, or potential data freshness issues. For a search tool with external API dependencies, this omission is significant, though it doesn't contradict any annotations.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and key details without unnecessary fluff. It front-loads the main action ('Search for House trading activity') and includes relevant context like the API source and data fields, making it easy to parse. A slight improvement could be separating usage hints into a second sentence for better 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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (single parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the basic purpose and data fields but lacks behavioral details (e.g., API constraints) and doesn't explain the return format, which is crucial since there's no output schema. This leaves gaps for an agent to operate effectively in a real-world scenario.

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 100% description coverage, with the 'name' parameter documented as 'Representative name (first or last name)'. The description adds minimal value beyond this, only reiterating 'by Representative name' without providing additional context like formatting examples or search behavior (e.g., partial matches). This meets the baseline for high schema coverage but doesn't enhance parameter understanding.

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: 'Search for House trading activity by Representative name' with the FMP House Trades by Name API. It specifies the verb ('search'), resource ('House trading activity'), and scope ('by Representative name'), making the action distinct. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'getHouseTrades' or 'searchInsiderTrades', which slightly limits its clarity in a crowded toolset.

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 by mentioning 'by Representative name' and listing data fields like trade dates and assets, suggesting it's for detailed trade queries. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'getHouseTrades' (which might not filter by name) or 'searchInsiderTradesByReportingName', leaving the agent to infer based on the name parameter alone.

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