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 'real-time' and 'latest' data, implying freshness, but lacks details on rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or data sources. For a real-time API tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in behavioral disclosure.

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 concise and front-loaded, stating the core function in the first sentence and elaborating with key metrics. Both sentences add value without redundancy, making it efficient. A minor deduction for not being maximally tight (e.g., could combine metrics into a list).

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description provides basic purpose and metrics but lacks completeness for a real-time data tool. It does not cover return format, error cases, or integration details, leaving gaps that could hinder effective agent use. It meets minimum viability but has clear 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% for the single parameter 'symbol', which is well-documented in the schema. The description does not add any parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides (e.g., no examples beyond ^GSPC, no constraints on valid symbols). Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.

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 as accessing real-time stock index quotes with specific metrics like price changes, highs/lows, and volume. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on 'stock index quotes' (e.g., vs. getQuote for stocks or getCryptocurrencyQuote), but does not explicitly name alternatives or detail scope differences beyond 'major stock indices around the world'.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives is provided. It mentions 'major stock indices around the world' but does not specify when to choose this over siblings like getAllIndexQuotes (for bulk data) or getIndexShortQuote (for short quotes), leaving usage context implied rather than stated.

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