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 mentions the tool provides a 'snapshot' and is for a 'quick overview,' which hints at read-only behavior and possibly real-time or current data, but doesn't explicitly state whether it's read-only, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what the output format is. This is a significant gap 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 two sentences that efficiently convey the tool's purpose and ideal use case without unnecessary details. It's front-loaded with the main function and avoids redundancy, though it could be slightly more structured by explicitly separating purpose from guidelines.

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 complexity of financial data tools, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., read-only status, error handling), output format, and how it differs from similar sibling tools, making it inadequate for an AI agent to fully understand the tool's operation.

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 the 'symbol' parameter fully documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema (e.g., no examples beyond the schema's '^GSPC'), so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 concise stock index quotes' and 'provides a snapshot of the current price, change, and volume for stock indexes.' It specifies the resource (stock index quotes) and the verb (access/get), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'getIndexQuote' or 'getAllIndexQuotes' beyond mentioning 'concise' and 'quick overview.'

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 users who need a quick overview of market movements,' which suggests when to use this tool (for quick snapshots). However, it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives among the many sibling tools (e.g., 'getIndexQuote' for more detailed data), leaving the guidance somewhat vague.

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