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. While it mentions the tool accesses data via an API and describes the type of data (price movements and volume within hourly intervals), it lacks critical behavioral details such as rate limits, authentication requirements, error handling, or whether this is a read-only operation. The description adds some context but leaves significant gaps 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 efficiently structured in two sentences, front-loading the core purpose and following with additional context about the API's utility. There's no wasted language, and it maintains focus on what the tool does and its ideal use case.

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 (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is partially complete. It covers the purpose and some usage context but lacks behavioral transparency and output details. Without annotations or an output schema, the description should do more to explain what the tool returns and any operational constraints, leaving room for improvement.

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 clear documentation for all three parameters (symbol, from, to). The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't need to given the comprehensive schema.

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 1-hour interval intraday data for stock indexes' with the specific resource being stock indexes. It distinguishes from some siblings (e.g., getIndex1MinuteData, getIndex5MinuteData) by specifying the 1-hour interval, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from all possible data access tools in the extensive sibling list.

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 stating it's 'ideal for tracking medium-term market trends during the trading day,' which suggests when this tool might be preferred. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like getIndex1MinuteData or getIndex5MinuteData, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions.

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