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. It mentions the data source ('Intraday 5-Minute Price Data API') and general use case ('crucial insights into price movements and trading volume'), but lacks critical behavioral details such as rate limits, authentication requirements, data freshness, error handling, or response format. The description doesn't contradict any annotations, but it's insufficient 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 appropriately sized with two sentences that are front-loaded with the core purpose. The first sentence clearly states what the tool does, and the second adds context about its value. There's minimal waste, though the second sentence could be more specific about the tool's unique aspects.

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 has no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It covers the basic purpose and use case but misses key details like response structure, error conditions, or limitations. For a data retrieval tool with three parameters, more context is needed to fully guide an AI agent, though it meets a minimum viable level.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for all three parameters (symbol, from, to). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as format examples or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description 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: 'Retrieve 5-minute interval intraday price data for stock indexes' with specific verb ('retrieve') and resource ('price data for stock indexes'). It distinguishes from some siblings (e.g., getIndex1HourData, getIndex1MinuteData) by specifying the 5-minute interval, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from all similar tools like getIndexQuote or getHistoricalIndexFullChart.

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 implied usage context by stating the data is 'ideal for traders who require short-term data,' which suggests when this tool might be preferred. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like getIndex1MinuteData, getIndexQuote, or getHistoricalIndexFullChart, 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.