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 states the tool provides 'real-time movements' and 'live quotes,' implying read-only access, but does not detail rate limits, authentication needs, data freshness, or error handling. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its operational behavior and constraints.

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, using two sentences that efficiently convey the tool's purpose and scope without unnecessary details. Every sentence adds value by specifying the resource and context. However, it could be slightly more structured by explicitly mentioning the API source ('FMP Stock Market Index Quotes API') earlier for 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 low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on behavioral traits, usage guidelines, and output format. Without annotations or an output schema, the description should provide more context on what data is returned and how to interpret it, but it falls short, making it only partially complete.

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 1 parameter with 100% description coverage, so the schema fully documents the 'short' parameter. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining the implications of using short format. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description does not compensate but also does not detract.

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: 'Track real-time movements of major stock market indexes' and 'Access live quotes for global indexes.' It specifies the verb ('track,' 'access') and resource ('stock market indexes,' 'global indexes'), making it understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'getAllIndexQuotes' or 'getIndexQuote,' which might offer similar functionality, so it lacks sibling distinction.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions 'major stock market indexes' and 'global indexes,' but does not specify prerequisites, exclusions, or compare to siblings such as 'getAllIndexQuotes' or 'getIndexQuote.' Without explicit when-to-use instructions, the agent may struggle to select the correct tool among similar options.

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