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 the API source and data fields (symbol, name, exchange, currency) but does not disclose behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication requirements, pagination, error handling, or whether the data is real-time or cached. This is inadequate for a tool with zero 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 two sentences with zero waste: the first sentence states the purpose and API source, and the second explains the value and target audience. It is front-loaded with the core functionality and efficiently structured.

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 simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but could be more complete. It explains what the tool does and the data fields returned, but lacks details on behavioral aspects like rate limits or data freshness, which are important for an API-based tool. It meets minimum viability but has clear gaps.

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 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately does not discuss parameters, focusing instead on the tool's purpose and output context. This meets the baseline for tools with no parameters.

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 verb ('Retrieve'), resource ('comprehensive list of stock market indexes'), and scope ('across global exchanges using the FMP Stock Market Indexes List API'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'getIndexQuote' (single index quote) and 'getAllIndexQuotes' (multiple index quotes) by focusing on metadata listing rather than price data.

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 ('helping analysts and investors keep track of various market benchmarks') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'getIndexQuote' for real-time quotes or 'getHistoricalIndexFullChart' for historical data. It provides clear purpose but lacks explicit comparison to sibling tools.

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